Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS

For Cambridgeshire, in the room of Stephen Gerald Howard, esquire, Q.C. (one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice).—[Mr. Redmayne.]

For High Peak, in the room of the right honourable Arthur Hugh Elsdale Molson, called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

For Colchester, in the room of the right honourable 'Cuthbert James McCall Alport, T.D., called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

PETITION

Covent Garden Market Bill

Mr. Proudfoot: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a humble Petition of the Covent Garden Tenants' Association which has been signed by the chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The Prayer to the Petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray your Honourable House that the Bill be not amended so as to restrict the powers of the Covent Garden Market Authority in carrying out the functions and duties imposed on them by the Bill and that they may be heard by themselves their Counsel or Agents before the Committee of your Honourable House to whom the Bill has been referred against any alteration of the Bill which may be detrimental to the property rights and interests of those whom they represent.
And your Petitioners, as in duty hound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHRAINI PRISONERS, ST. HELENA

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will grant free legal aid to the three Bahraini political prisoners on St. Helena, in view of the important legal aspects of the case, the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in removing the men to an inaccessible island and the expense of conducting such legal action as necessary in St. Helena.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): No. Sir.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Minister now confirm that the statement he made to the House a fortnight ago was rather misleading, as one of the prisoners concerned has now made clear that he wishes to take further legal proceedings to ensure his release from illegal detention in St. Helena for the past four years? Further, as these men are detained on a remote, rather inaccessible island, which involves the men's legal advisers in considerable expense in conducting the case, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for facilities to be made available so that the case may be conducted?

Mr. Heath: The statement I made to the House was not in any way misleading. It stated quite clearly the position at that time. The Government do not accept that the detention is illegal and, as I have already said, I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Fletcher: But, surely, the Minister will not deprive these unfortunate men of their opportunity to present their legal case merely because they have not got the financial means to prosecute it. Will not he ensure that they have facilities for legal aid?

Mr. Heath: The manner in which their case is presented is a matter for the men and their legal advisers to decide.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Lord Privy Seal please reply to the first part of my Question, and confirm that one of these political prisoners now wishes legal proceedings to be pursued?

Mr. Heath: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the Answer to a later Question.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a further statement about the future of the three Bahraini citizens imprisoned in St. Helena.

Mr. Heath: Correspondence is in progress between Her Majesty's Government and the prisoners' solicitors. I have no further statement to make at present.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman, first, answer the question put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) and say whether or not one of the prisoners has indicated that he desires to proceed with habeas corpus proceedings? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that these men have been put under very strong psychological pressures and that the Government have presented them with three courses only: one, proceeding with a second go at habeas corpus proceedings at enormous expense; two, remaining for another ten years in St. Helena: three, going back to Bahrain to serve their sentence? Is it not clear in the circumstances that none of those choices is one which ought to be offered to men who are serving unjust sentences?

Mr. Heath: I told the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) that the question of proceedings is a matter between the prisoners and their solicitors. The Government have placed no psychological pressure of any kind on these prisoners in St. Helena.

Mr. Stonehouse: The Minister cannot expect to get away with this as easily as that. A fortnight ago he made a statement to the House indicating that the men were choosing to go back to Bahrain, and he now knows that that is not the case. Will he confirm that these men were removed illegally and, indeed, they were kidnapped by those responsible to his Department four years ago? In view of that, would it not now be honourable for the men to be released and allowed to choose for themselves where they should go?

Mr. Heath: I have already said that the Government do not accept that these

prisoners were removed illegally or that any such expression as "kidnapped" is applicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONGO

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Lord Privy Seal what action Her Majesty's Government have taken in the United Nations to support written protests made by the Secretary-General to the Belgian Government about the intervention of Belgian nations in the Congo.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are proposed by Her Majesty's Government, through the United Nations, to remove Belgian military personnel from the Congo, to stop the delivery of aircraft to the irregular forces in Katanga Province, and thus to lessen the danger of the development of full-scale civil war.

Mr. Heath: It is important to distinguish between military and civilian personnel. Many Belgian civilian technicians have throughout remained at their posts in the Congo, thus providing valuable assistance in keeping the economy and public services of the country functioning.
As to military and para-military personnel, we have supported a resolution in the Security Council urging the withdrawal of such people, whether Belgians or other foreigners.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that many weeks ago Mr. Hammarskjoeld presented formal written protests to the Belgians against their help to Mr. Tshombe, and the violation of the Trust Territory of Ruanda Urundi, and would it not have helped to restrain both the Belgians and Mr. Tshombe if Her Majesty's Government had summoned a meeting of the Security Council to give full support to Mr. Hammarskjoeld?

Mr. Heath: Throughout the whole of the difficulties in the Congo we have given the fullest possible support to the Secretary-General.

Mr. Driberg: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that Mr. Dayal himself has in his possession the names of hundreds of Belgian Army officers and other ranks who are serving in Katanga, and whose names are still on the Belgian Army List? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman take more effective action? Can he also


answer the second part of Question No. 27—about the delivery of jet aircraft the other day?

Mr. Heath: The action of the Secretary-General with the Belgian Government has followed these resolutions, and it is up to the Secretary-General to inspire the form of activities in the United Nations that he wants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Weak."] It is not weak. We are working through the United Nations, and supporting it. The question of the jet aircraft is a matter between the two Governments involved. We are not involved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because I understand that the aircraft that has been delivered was being carried by an American aircraft and the one being delivered was French. Therefore, neither of these things directly concerns us as a Government.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that but for the presence of hundreds of Belgians who are serving in many capacities in the health and educational spheres the chaos and suffering in the Congo would have been much worse?

Mr. Heath: In my Answer I have emphasised the value of the services performed by Belgian technicians and advisers.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Minister says that we have given full support to Mr. Hammarskjoeld. He has admitted that we did not call a meeting of the Security Council to support these Notes. Did we make any representation in Brussels, OT take other action of that kind?

Mr. Heath: We have used our influence wherever possible. The calling of the Security Council is not always a matter for us. Naturally, we are in the closest consultation with the Secretary-General over these matters, and we very often take his advice.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether pay and other expenditure incurred by military units engaged in the Congo under the direction of the United Nations is met by funds provided by the United Nations.

Mr. Heath: The basic pay and such expenditure as would normally be

incurred were they serving in their own countries is met in respect of units engaged in the Congo by the Governments concerned. The additional costs are chargeable to United Nations funds.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the military costs, pay and ancillary services, are met by the countries concerned? Is that the reason why some of the countries have withdrawn their troops from United Nations' direction in the Congo? Is it not desirable that the purely military cost should be borne by the United Nations?

Mr. Heath: That is not the reason which any of the countries which have withdrawn their contributions have given for withdrawal, but I am quite prepared to consider the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman makes and look into it.

Mr. Shinwell: Will he pass it on to Mr. Hammarskjoeld?

Mr. Heath: I will see that our delegate at the United Nations is informed of it.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals have been made by Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations concerning the pacification of the Congo, with particular reference to bringing the murderers of Patrice Lumumba to justice, the disarming of military units other than the United Nations forces, the withdrawal of the Belgians, and the reconvening of the Congolese Parliament.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the situation in the Congo in so far as it constitutes a danger to world peace.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a comprehensive statement as to the proposals in regard to the Congo which Her Majesty's Government propose to lay before the United Nations Organisation at its forthcoming meeting.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the Congo situation and the recent meetings of the Security Council on this matter.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Lord Privy Seal what action has been taken by the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations Security Council with respect to the situation in the Congo.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the Congo, and on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission and to the proposals submitted to the United Nations by the President of Ghana and published on 18th February.

Mr. Heath: The meeting of the Security Council ended on 20th February with the adoption of a resolution designed to reinvigorate the United Nations operation and prevent further outside intervention. It urges the United Nations to take the necessary measures to prevent civil war, including the use of force, in the last resort; it seeks to secure the withdrawal of foreign military personnel and urges that the Congolese forces should be reorganised; it urges the convening of the Congolese Parliament and proposes an impartial investigation into the circumstances of Mr. Lumumba's death.
In supporting this resolution our representative made clear that we did not consider the resolution gave the United Nations power to impose forcibly any solution, political or otherwise, upon the Congolese; that we interpreted the reference in the resolution to the
use of force, if necessary, in the last resort
as meaning that force would only be used to prevent a clash between hostile Congolese troops; and that we interpreted the first paragraph as meaning that it was for the Secretary-General to implement the resolution.
There are some additional encouraging signs that progress may now be possible. The preliminary report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission treats the provisional Government in Leopoldville as a basis for a more representative Government, and urges that a conference of political leaders should be held to revise the Constitution. I understand that the Congolese still intend to hold their Round Table Conference in Elisabeth-vine on 1st March for this purpose. Furthermore, President Kasavubu assured Mr. Hammarskjöld on 16th February of

his confidence and support and of the continued desire of the Congolese authorities to co-operate with the United Nations.

Mr. Swingler: Now that the Government, presumably, accept some measure of responsibility for helping to implement the resolution, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct Her Majesty's representatives in Brussels to request the Belgian Government now to withdraw their military personnel from Katanga and to order their puppets in Katanga to comply with this United Nations resolution?

Mr. Heath: The resolution has to be implemented, as has been stated, by the Secretary-General. We shall give him every support we can in doing that. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Belgian Government can order the authorities in the Province of Katanga to do what they wish.

Mr. Donnelly: Is not the principal problem in implementing any physical action in the Congo one of practicality? What is the Government's view about necessary steps to secure proper military leadership and co-ordination by United Nations forces in the Congo?

Mr. Heath: I agree that that is an important point. Once such a resolution has been passed—we agree with the substance of the resolution and have supported it thoroughly—the question of the extent to which it can be carried out in dealing, for example, with volunteers into the Congo is very difficult indeed. I think that the military organisation in the Congo itself must be a matter between the Secretary-General and the Command of the United Nations forces in the Congo. It cannot be possible for every country to give its own views or say how this should be done with a force of that kind.

Mr. Henderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether representatives of the Security Council are to be present at the proposed round-table conference? Would it not be a good thing if they were and if that conference were held under the aegis of the United Nations?

Mr. Heath: The proposal was made that the members of the Security Council should go to meet in Leopoldville or elsewhere in the Congo. I understand that that is under discussion but that no decision has been reached.

Mr. Driberg: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to answer Question No. 26. Would he please do so? Would he say what is the policy of the Government on the Conciliation Commission's Report and what is the Government's view on Dr. Nkrumah's proposals? He has not answered those questions at all. Before agreeing to recognise the Ileo administration, will the Government consult very carefully the Commonwealth Governments most closely concerned?

Mr. Heath: In answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we have throughout kept in the closest consultation with all the members of the Commonwealth. In answer to his supplementary question concerning the Conciliation Commission's Report and President Nkrumah's proposals, that was dealt with in the Answer, because we have supported the comprehensive resolution at the Security Council, the terms of which I have read out. Those terms cover part of the recommendations of the Conciliation Commission—for example, the support of the provisional Government and working by co-operation—and they also provide the answer to some of the proposals of President Nkrumah.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: First, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Secretary-General has made any assessment about the number of troops which will be necessary to carry out these aims? Secondly, does this new resolution mean that the United Nations forces in the Congo will now be able to provide sanctuary to some of those who are in fear of their lives?

Mr. Heath: I have not yet heard of any fresh assessment by the Secretary-General of the additional forces which he will require. We understand that the United Nations are endeavouring to provide sanctuary in so far as the number of forces which they have will allow. In Stanleyville, for example, there is some sanctuary provided by United Nations forces.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the reports that new contingents of troops are being promised by India, Pakistan and Iraq?

Mr. Heath: I have no definite information on that.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish a White Paper on the Government's actions in relation to the Congo, showing in particular how the United Kingdom representative voted on each resolution submitted to the Security Council, and what action was proposed by the United Kingdom representative on the reports submitted to the Security Council by United Nations representatives in the Congo.

Mr. Heath: The United Nations documents containing the speeches of the United Kingdom representative and showing how he voted on Security Council resolutions are regularly made available in the Library. I do not see any need for the publication of a White Paper at present.

Mr. Warbey: Would not a full review of the record show that the Government's behaviour in the whole Congo question has been very deplorable, beginning with their abstention on the first resolution passed by the Security Council on this subject? Have not their actions, including, for example, their support of the unconstitutional overthrow of the Lumumba Government, all through connived at the behaviour of the Belgian colonialists in the Congo and their stooges in Katanga?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. I cannot accept any of the strictures of the hon. Gentleman. The Government have supported the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the United Nations throughout all these difficulties. One will not find a solution to this problem in the Congo, which is of such seriousness, merely by repeating the parrot cries of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGOLA (INCIDENT)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the recent incident in Angola involving United Kingdom citizens, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for East Ham, North; and what representations on the matter have been made to the Portuguese authorities.

Mr. Heath: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend on 15th February to the


hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot).
No representations have been made to the Portuguese authorities.

Mr. Prentice: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why no representations are being made? Is not this a very serious incident, in which a newsreel camera was confiscated, and is it not an example of the deplorable censorship policy of the Portuguese in Angola? Should not the Government really welcome this incident in order to make representations about their general view of the damage being done by Portuguese policy to the whole case of the West in relation to Africa?

Mr. Heath: This is a serious incident and I understand that it is still under investigation. The Portuguese personnel concerned will be dealt with by a military tribunal. The camera was the property of a South African national, so the question of representations would fall in that quarter.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Tilney—Question 4.

Mr. D. Foot: Arising from that reply—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: When I called Mr. Tilney, I did not see the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am tempted to call him. Mr. Foot.

Mr. Foot: Are we to understand that no further report has been received from Her Majesty's representative, either in Lisbon or Angola, since 15th February?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. We have received a further report, because the consul has been to see one of those gentlemen in hospital and has reported on his progress. But the matter itself is still under investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made with Her Majesty's Government's proposal to set up an international committtee of experts to examine disarmament control.

Mr. Heath: Discussions on disarmament are due to be resumed at the

United Nations General Assembly which will reconvene on 7th March.

Mr. Thomson: Would the Lord Privy Seal be kind enough to answer the Question on the Order Paper? What has happened about the Government's proposal for this committee of experts? Is he aware that the American Administration are taking the matter seriously, and should not a country in Britain's position give a real lead in studying the problems of disarmament?

Mr. Heath: It was our own original proposal that this committee of experts should be set up, but the point of my Answer is that when the Assembly adjourned no decision had been reached on the resolution. We are immensely keen that this should be put into action, but must await the next meeting of the Assembly before further action can be taken on the resolution.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: When the Assembly comes together again, will the Minister consider adding to our proposal the further proposal that the experts should study, not only control and inspection, but disarmament as well? Will he also consider whether Her Majesty's Government cannot prepare a detailed disarmament plan to lay before the United Nations negotiating organ when it is set up?

Mr. Heath: I will, of course, consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but it widens the whole field. The object of the Prime Minister's proposal was to focus on the 'problem of control, which seemed the main difference between the Western and the Soviet positions.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We really must get on. We are already getting behind.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the latest Western proposals for submission to the Ten-Power Disarmament Committee; and if he will now state the date of its next meeting.

Mr. Heath: The Ten-Power Disarmament Committee has not met since 27th June last year when its Communist members walked out. The Soviet Union have stated that they will not take part in the work of the Committee and therefore no date for a meeting of this body can be arranged.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the Question?

Mr. Heath: There are no latest proposals for submission to the Ten-Power Disarmament Committee, because the Disarmament Committee is not meeting. The proposals rest on those which were placed on the day on which the Soviet Powers walked out.

Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at my Question? I asked what were the latest proposals for submission to the Committee. I am asking whether we are to assume that the proposals of 27th June last year which were put forward by the United States Government with the consent of Her Majesty's Government are the final disarmament offer to be put forward by the West. May we take it that consultations are taking place between Her Majesty's Government, the French Government and the United States Government with a view to putting forward fresh proposals when the Committee again meets?

Mr. Heath: Since the ending of the disarmament conference in the summer as the result of this walk-out there were the further developments and disarmament resolutions at the United Nations Assembly in the autumn. We are in the closest consultation with our allies about the disarmament position and we are hopeful that we shall be able to make more progress when the Assembly resumes.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB LEAGUE (LONDON OFFICE)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government concerning the establishment in London of an office of the Arab League.

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's chargéd' Affairs in Cairo recently informed the Secretary-General of the Arab League that Her Majesty's Government could agree to his proposal to open an Arab League office in London.

Sir L. Plummer: Does the Lord Privy Seal appreciate that in all quarters of the House there will be a welcome for any step that will improve relations, so abruptly severed, between this country and the Arabs at the time of Suez,

and that, therefore, we welcome the fact that the Arab League office is coming here? But has it been made clear to the Arab League that this office is not welcome here if it is to be used to spy on British firms trading with Israel, or organising a boycott against trading with Israel, or publishing anti-semitic propaganda here? Will the head of this office have diplomatic status?

Mr. Heath: We want this office to conduct itself in the normal and proper manner. The head of the office will not have diplomatic status.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Lord Privy Seal what negotiations Her Majesty's Government have had with other members of the European Free Trade Association regarding the possibility of individual countries in that group, including the United Kingdom, making separate trade agreements with countries forming the European Economic Community.

Mr. Heath: None, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the pressure which is being put on Her Majesty's Government from various quarters to accede to the Rome Treaty, may we take it that any negotiations with the E.E.C. will be conducted by E.F.T.A. and not individually by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Heath: We have not yet reached the stage of embarking on negotiations. In the exploratory discussions which we have been having with German and Italian officials, and which we are to embark on next week with French officials, it has been made clear that we can speak only for ourselves and that, in considering any arrangement with the Six, the interests of our E.F.T.A. partners must, of course, be safeguarded.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (KRUPP'S HOLDINGS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the name of the representative appointed by Her Majesty's Government to the Mixed Experts Committee responsible for the disposal of Krupp's holdings.

Mr. Heath: The British member of the Committee has been Sir Edward Jackson, a distinguished judge and former colonial servant.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct this distinguished judge to work along the lines suggested by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin who, when Foreign Secretary, said, with reference to this matter, that he had no desire to see these gentlemen or their like return to a position which they had abused with such tragic results, and that the intention was to socialise the industries? Why cannot the Government carry out that policy?

Mr. Heath: The Mixed Committee of Experts is an independent Committee, and therefore Her Majesty's Government cannot give any instructions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Swingler: asked the Lord Privy Seal what are now the obstacles to the conclusion of an international agreement to ban nuclear tests.

Mr. Heath: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said on 15th February, there are a number of points of disagreement, but the hold-up mainly relates to the research programme, the length of the moratorium, and the quota of inspections.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the considerable progress which has been made towards reaching agreement and the relative success of the Geneva Conference in maintaining a moratorium, albeit temporary, among the participants, will the Lord Privy Seal now make a supreme effort to clinch these matters by an agreement in principle because of the opportunities which it would give for further progress on disarmament?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir.

Mr. A. Henderson: Inasmuch as Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that they do not intend to resume nuclear tests, would it not be advantageous if they made it clear that they are prepared to sign a ban on all tests, large and small, pending the working out of a better system of control and inspection?

Mr. Heath: One would have to examine that carefully. We must adhere

to the original terms by which we suspended tests when we started the conference.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose some limited form of unilateral disarmament at the nuclear test talks.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: If Britain announced that she was not merely suspending test explosions as at present, but ending them permanently, would not this help to disperse the mutual suspicion, which at the moment is so deep that only deeds, and not words, will remove it? After all, was it not by such limited unilateral action that the present system was started and has since been maintained?

Mr. Heath: I know that the hon. Member is sincere in his suggestion, but I do not think that that is the best means of reaching the agreement which he wants. We have made considerable progress in the talks and we are hopeful that when they are resumed we shall be able to reach final agreement.

Mr. Allaun: Surely, after two and a half years with failure to agree, the present methods have failed?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir; I cannot accept that the present methods have failed. When we resume the conference at the end of March, after consultation with the American Government, I hope that we shall be able to make real progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPE (DISENGAGEMENT AREA)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will propose at an early meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations that a committee should be set up to consider the possibilities of preparing a United Nations' plan for an area of disengagement in Europe.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir.

Mrs. Hart: Would not the Lord Privy Seal agree that the centre of Europe is an area within which there is the greatest danger of a war beginning which could end in a nuclear war? Therefore, is not this a specific problem which needs specific attention? Will not the Government


make such a proposal as a preliminary contribution paving the way for a period when agreement on such a proposal might be reached?

Mr. Heath: The Government cannot accept any such proposal for a study of disengagement, because they believe that disengagement itself actually increases the danger through the creation of a vacuum in an important area like Europe. It is quite different from disarmament or any form of controlled armaments.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will give details of Her Majesty's Government's new policy towards the seating of the Peking Government in the United Nations.

Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 8th February and to what was said in another place on that day.

Mr. Donnelly: Could the right hon. Gentleman be a little less baleful and bashful? Is he not aware that for once he has the support of the Marquis of Salisbury? Could he tell us whether the Government are going to vote for or against the admission of the Peking Government to the United Nations?

Mr. Heath: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until the matter arises.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the situation will not be improved by repeating his parrot cries?

Mr. Heath: That is a quite different matter. The position has been, as we have stated in the House since the debate on the Address in this Session, that the realities of political life meant that the Peking Administration should have a seat in the United Nations, but the debate has hitherto been on a moratorium and whether this division would split the United Nations. That still remains the position until we can see the situation when the matter comes up again at the Assembly in the autumn.

Mr. Donnelly: In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAOS

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Lord Privy Seal what reply was given by the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation to the invitation to send agents to investigate the charges of alleged intervention and aid from North Vietnam made by the present rulers of Laos; and what was the policy of the United Kingdom representative in the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation on that occasion.

Mr. Heath: A reply, which has not been published, was sent to the Laotian Government on 16th February by the Secretary-General of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, on behalf of the Council Representatives. It is now under consideration by the Laotian Government.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that the Minister of Education of the Laotian Government has said that the allegations of North Vietnam intervention were mere propaganda to secure foreign assistance? Is it not further a fact that S.E.A.T.O. is a totally one-sided organisation? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that matters of this sort will be dealt with through the United Nations and not through S.E.A.T.O.?

Mr. Heath: S.E.A.T.O. is a regional organisation which is permissible under the United Nations Organisation. Apparently, the views of the Minister of Education at the Press conference, like a good many other Press conferences, are in dispute. The Government make their own assessment of the degree of intervention in Laos.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that there has been increasing Communist guerrilla activity in Vietnam, greater than in Inns itself?

Mr. Heath: I think that that is probably true, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATSU AND QUEMOY

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government continue to recognise that, as they stated in reply to Questions from the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on 4th February, 1955, and from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, on


15th February, 1956, the Chinese coastal islands of Matsu and Quemoy form part of the territory of the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: In view of that reply and in view of the fact that the Defence White Paper now mentions China as a potential enemy, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in no circumstances will the Government allow themselves to be committed to war by the United States or anybody else in order to keep Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese coastal islands?

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Member likes to put that question upon the Paper, I will give him a considered reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Development Districts (Training Schemes)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in adopting the suggestion of the Industrial Training Council that firms with training schemes in development districts recruit more apprentices than they require for the benefit of companies coming to these districts; and what financial support he proposes to offer towards such a scheme.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): My inquiries indicate that the prospects of making such arrangements other than exceptionally are not good. My officers are in touch with incoming firms about their training needs and plans and will bring any possibilities of this kind to their notice. The financing of such arrangements is a matter between the firms concerned.

Mr. Boyden: Is it good enough to accept this in principle and not to give financial support? Surely, financial support would make all the difference?

Mr. Hare: I think that where two firms are able to agree such arrangements, they should be able to settle the financial question between them.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not clear from the Report originally sent to the Minister by the Industrial Training Council that many firms in the areas mentioned by the Council will take less apprentices than

are desirable? If special measures are not taken to get firms to take more apprentices than otherwise they would take, does not this mean that this large generation of school leavers will have fewer opportunities than they should? Will not the Minister take action?

Mr. Hare: I do not accept what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, however, I am concerned about the whole problem and I am having detailed inquiries made in development districts to find out to what extent training capacity might be available to meet the needs of incoming firms.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Boyden—Question No. 29.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a trade union point of view concerning this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the next Question.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many companies setting up factories in development districts have established training facilities in advance of opening their factory.

Mr. Hare: This has been done in some cases. I am at the moment having a survey made of the training needs and plans of incoming firms. When this is completed, I will send the hon. Member any further information on this question which becomes available.

Mr. Boyden: Have any such steps been taken in my constituency?

Mr. Hare: I will check up, and when I write to the hon. Member I will let him know.

Aberdeen (Motor Car and Associated Industries)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the redundancy, short-time working and suspensions of workers in the motor industry and its associated industries where Aberdeen workers are affected, what steps he is taking to find employment for those Aberdeen workers; and with what success.

Mr. Hare: Of the 91 workers placed by my Aberdeen office with firms in the motor car and associated industries since


the end of 1959, so far as I am aware 19 have become redundant. Facilities were offered to these as to other redundant workers to register before discharge and every effort will be made to find them other work. Information is not available about workers from Aberdeen who found their own jobs in these industries, or about those on short time.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is it not obvious that the present situation results in considerable waste of manpower and productive capacity and, therefore, intake of foreign currency, which is damaging to the nation? Is it not time that there was a nation-wide co-ordinated plan to deal with the relevant problems and to prevent that waste? What steps is the Minister taking in conjunction with the T.U.C., the President of the Board of Trade and his own Department to solve these problems in a constructive and permanent way?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. and learned Members knows, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is doing all he can to help in areas such as Aberdeen which benefit under the Local Employment Act. Concerning the further and wider range of subjects which the hon. and learned Member has mentioned, I was not sure whether he was desirous of putting an embargo upon all the citizens of Aberdeen who might try to seek work elsewhere. He had better be careful before pursuing that one.

School Leavers

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Labour how many school leavers were registered on the books of employment exchanges at the end of 1960; how many of these have been awaiting employment for a period of three months or more: and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Hare: There were just over 136,000 school leavers at Christmas, 1960. On 16th January this year, 8,079 including 394 who left school more than three months before that date were registered for employment.

Mr. Owen: Is the Minister aware that this situation leaves a considerable number of our school leavers still awaiting employment? The matter has been under consideration for a long time in connec-

tion with the Report of the Can Committee. Surely, it is time for us to expect a little more energetic action from the Minister and his Department.

Mr. Hare: That is not a very fair reflection. I have just given the figure of 136,000 school leavers at Christmas. By 16th January 7,000, representing only 5·3 per cent. of the total number, were not in employment, I am very glad to say that that is a much better figure than for January, 1960, when at this stage 9-6 per cent. were not in work.

Disabled Persons, Glasgow

Mr. Milian: asked the Minister of Labour how many registered disabled persons in Glasgow were unemployed at the latest available date.

Mr. Hare: One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven on 20th February.

Mr. Milian: Did the Minister say 1,947? Is that not an extraordinarily high figure? Is he aware of the extreme difficulty that these disabled persons in Glasgow experience in getting jobs in view of the high unemployment in the area? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to encourage employers to adopt a more liberal attitude towards these people and not to turn them down for jobs for which they are fit even with their disablement?

Mr. Hare: I sympathise with much of what the hon. Member has said. This is a high figure. My officers will, of course, continue to do all that they can to find work for these people. Certainly, there will be no relaxing in that direction. There is a good side to the picture, I am glad to say; the position has improved in the last twelve months, during which the number of disabled persons unemployed in Glasgow dropped by 387, or 16½ per cent. We are, therefore, making some progress.

Apprenticeships

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of those leaving school during the past three years took out apprenticeships; and in which industries these were.

Mr. Hare: In 1957, 36·6 per cent of boys and 7 per cent. of girls; in 1958, 34·4 per cent. of boys and 6·9 per cent.


of girls; and in 1959, 33·6 per cent. of boys and 7·4 per cent. of girls. The figures for 1960 are not yet available. As the answer to the second part of the Question consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lee: Is it not clear that more than two-thirds of the school leavers are not taking up apprenticeships, that following this and previous replies it becomes abundantly clear that the Government's conception based on the Carr Report has dismally failed and that it is not sufficient merely to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) that a large number of school leavers are working when we are fairly sure from these latest figures that most of them are going into blind-alley jobs? Is not the "bulge" a once-for-all opportunity which, if we miss it, will result in a dearth of skilled people for a long period ahead?

TABLE SHOWING INDUSTRIES IN WHICH BOYS AND GIRLS STARTED WORK AS APPRENTICES OR LEARNERS


—
Boys
Girls




1957
1958
1959
1957
1958
1959




(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)


Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing
…
1,366
1,373
1,473
138
125
119


Mining and Quarrying
…
1,976
1,839
1,215
10
12
6


Food, Drink and Tobacco
…
1,303
1,532
1,269
58
609
392


Chemicals, and allied industries
…
1,163
1,136
1,047
100
113
98


Metal Manufacture
…
2,934
2,401
3,327
25
31
33


Engineering, Shipbuilding and Electrical Goods
…
25,631
23,692
20,577
362
274
251


Vehicles, including motor repairers and garages
…
12,434
13,146
13,283
78
66
109


Metal goods not elsewhere specified
…
3,155
2,846
3,746
39
34
46


Textiles
…
1,083
958
1,165
727
637
580


Leather, Leather Goods and Fur
…
176
155
213
96
155
99


Clothing and Footwear
…
1,244
1,153
1,038
3,123
2,914
3,108


Bricks, Pottery, Glass, Cement, etc
…
862
790
840
16
16
22


Timber, Furniture, etc
…
2,984
2,899
3,360
129
95
117


Paper, Printing and Publishing
…
3,194
3,101
3,176
705
787
666


Other Manufacturing Industries
…
498
434
567
71
54
50


Construction
…
18,783
18,308
21,966
54
74
80


Gas, Electricity and Water
…
1,452
1,419
1,565
11
14
22


Transport and Communication
…
2,622
2,167
2,210
159
140
232


Distributive Trades
…
5,608
6,246
7,050
1,627
1,585
2,220


Insurance, Banking and Finance
…
198
202
478
72
66
84


Professional and Scientific Services
…
1,116
1,239
1,634
1,524
1,575
1,830


Miscellaneous Services
…
2,095
2,519
3,548
7,039
1,778
10,268


Public Administration
…
3,305
3,657
3,954
178
198
199


TOTALS
…
95,184
93,212
98,701
16,851
17,352
20,631

School Leavers, Sedgefield

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the redundancies that

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member would not wish to exaggerate the problem. When he has had a chance of looking at the figures he will see that there were 5,500 more apprenticeships for boys in 1959 than in 1958. The 1960 figures should be available in the next two or three weeks, and I am hopeful that they will show an increase in both the number and the proportion of boys and girls entering apprenticeships and learner-ships. We have no cause to be complacent, and, therefore, I agree with much of what the hon. Member has said, but do not let us decry what is being done.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Slater—Question No. 35.

Mr. Moody: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but my head was turned away from the hon. Gentleman and I did not see him.

Following is the table:

have taken place, and those expected this year, in the mining industry in Sedgefield rural district, what are the prospects for children leaving school this year in finding


employment within the area or within easy travelling distance of their homes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): Prospects for girls are reasonably good, but in that part of the district which is mainly dependent on coal mining there is little alternative employment for boys. In spite of redundancies, the local collieries have vacancies for boys as trainees and are hoping to obtain further recruits from this year's school leavers.

Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many redundancies in this rural area in which these mines are situated? Is he aware that at Thrislington Colliery, the manpower is to be depleted from 950 to 400? What prospects are there for the young people in the two parishes of Cornforth and Thrislington? Does he not think that he ought to contact his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with a view to bringing more immediate help to these two areas in that rural district?

Mr. Thomas: The attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been drawn to this immediate area as recently as 31st January, when the hon. Gentleman himself asked a Question, which was answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I can well appreciate his concern where redundancies are taking place, but I understand that, in the areas to which he has referred, the redundancies have been resolved in the main by transfers from one colliery to another. The employment of youths in coal mining is likely to remain fairly stable and the recruitment of boy trainees will continue.

Mr. Moody: Will the Minister give some thought to the fact that the greatest objections to these apprenticeship schemes come from people who are engaged in the industry? Is he aware that 1,000 craftsmen left the furnishing industry last year because the industry failed to provide them with a decent living? Before he goes any further with apprenticeship schemes, will he take some steps to deal with the apprentices who have served their terms and want a living wage?

Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent, that both sides of industry have a great part to play in future apprenticeship matters.

Apprentices (Government Training Centres)

Mr. Milan: asked the Minister of Labour how many apprentices are now receiving first year apprenticeship training at Government training centres under the scheme announced on 11th April, 1960; and how many of these are at the Glasgow Hillington training centre.

Mr. P. Thomas: One hundred and forty-three, including eleven at the Hillington Government Training Centre.

Mr. Milian: These are surely very small figures in view of the Government's original proposal that in the first instance there should be 300 training places. Can the Minister say what steps are being taken to bring these courses to the attention of employers, particularly in Glasgow, where this sort of thing is badly needed?

Mr. Thomas: I agree that expansion has been slower than expected. Recruitment proved particularly difficult in the early stages, but should prove easier now that the scheme is established. My right hon. Friend expects to raise the present number of 12 classes to 25 during 1961–62. At Hillington, he proposes to open a further engineering class later this year and the proposal of a class in radio and television servicing has also been put to the trade for consideration.

Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on present employment trends and prospects in Wales with particular reference to the more difficult areas.

Mr. P. Thomas: There has recently been an upward trend in employment in the manufacturing industries in Wales and unemployment is lower than it was last year. There are 30,000 jobs in prospect including 9,000 in development districts.

Mr. Gower: While acknowledging that the picture revealed by my hon. Friend is largely very encouraging, may I ask him if he could confirm that within that general picture there are three troublesome areas—North-West Wales, Pembrokeshire and the heads of some of the valleys—and can he give an assurance that special attention will be given to them?

Mr. Thomas: I agree that these areas are difficult areas, and I can certainly give the assurance that special attention will be given to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Malta (Non-Industrial Staff)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what stops he is taking to transfer his Department's non-industrial workers in Malta who are becoming redundant to similar jobs in the other two Services where there is a non-industrial staff; and what steps he is taking to continue the service of draughts-men in the United Kingdom where there is a shortage of these skilled men.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): Some posts for established Admiralty non-industrial staff will be provided by the War Department and the Royal Air Force in Malta. Details are still being worked out and it is too early to give any numbers. As, however, neither of those Departments have existing vacancies, any men they take on will replace unestablished staff.
We are investigating the conditions under which it might be possible for Maltese draughtsmen to work in the United Kingdom. One of the difficulties is that qualifications for entry in Malta are not the same as in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that my report is that a large number of non-industrial workers are being dismissed by the Admiralty? Will he arrange with the other two Departments that they will absorb all the men dismissed by the Admiralty? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been reported to me that craftsmen are being dismissed by his Department in Malta? Will he ensure that these men are either absorbed in Malta or transferred to the Admiralty in this country where there are vacancies?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are trying to work out a scheme which will harm people to the least possible extent, but I cannot guarantee that every person who is unestablished and who becomes redundant can be re-employed.

Polaris Base, Holy Loch

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement on the Clyde Public Safety Scheme and the further arrangements he has made for the defence of the local inhabitants in the event of an accident at the Polaris base in Holy Loch.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Orders for protecting the population in the extremely unlikely event of a nuclear accident have now been prepared by the Clyde Local Liaison Committee. These plans will ensure immediate and coordinated action by the naval and civil authorities with the advice and assistance of the Atomic Energy Authority. They are based on the measures applying at nuclear power stations and other civil establishments.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that these plans include, in certain circumstances, the evacuation or the villages of Kilmun and Sandbank, and also dealing with the decontamination of food supplies? Can he tell us if any provision is being made for compensation of the local inhabitants in such circumstances? Is he also aware that the Clyde Public Safety Committee was greatly cheered up yesterday by the announcement that the Americans are not sending this ship after all? Is it true that the Admiralty are trying to discourage the Americans from staying away?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think it must be that the sincerely held pacifist views of the hon. Gentleman have led him to some of his anxieties. So far as I know, he put up no objection to the establishment on the borders of his own constituency of a nuclear power station.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of people in Scotland welcome this contribution to the defence of the country?

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a nuclear power station is not a Polaris submarine, and is not meant for bombing the civil population anywhere?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am aware of that fact. I am also aware of the fact that the likelihood of accident is equally remote in both cases.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what reasons have led to the postponement of the arrival of the Polaris submarine in the Holy Loch.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Arrangements are proceeding as planned for the arrival of the first Polaris submarine, and no question has arisen of any postponement.

Mr. Rankin: Could the Civil Lord tell us why it was necessary, according to widespread reports, for this Government to put pressure on the American Administration to bring Polaris to the Holy Loch? Can he tell us what was the nature of the representations which were made yesterday after I took the delegation to the Admiralty?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am honestly afraid that I cannot comment on the imaginative happenings in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I know of no such thing.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. May I have your guidance here, Mr. Speaker? This Question was put down by me to the Prime Minister and transferred to the Civil Lord, who was supposed to be able to answer. Now he has shown that he cannot answer it.

Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon. Member, I will look at what he said, but I do not think that follows from what the Minister said.

H.M.S. "Leviathan"

Commander Kerans: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the future of H.M.S. "Leviathan" launched in 1945; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am not at present able to add anything further to

the explanation I then gave to my hon. and gallant Friend last April. I note his interest, however, and when a decision is reached I will let him know.

Commander Kerans: Will not my hon. Friend agree that this ship is something of a white elephant and that it has been unused for very many years? Can he say what is the cost to the taxpayer?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think we should be taking a risk if we got rid of this ship, of a type which in the past has been very useful. The cost to the taxpayer at present of retaining this ship is £7,000 a year.

Mr. Paget: As this has been going on for years, when are we to have a decision about it? Is she, for instance, suitable for conversion to a combined operations ship, or what sort of rôle does one contemplate she might be used for? We have had this hanging on for years and years.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would point out that if we had not hung on, we should not have had "Albion" and "Bulwark" to convert into carriers. This particular ship is smaller than both of those, and when completed will displace about 15,000 tons. I should not like to say now whether we can get rid of it.

Mr. Lipton: May I ask the Civil Lord if any estimate has been made of the scrap value of this vessel? Is it not time to make some estimate of that kind?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: If we scrap it, it would go out to competitive tender, and in the interests of the taxpayer I should not like to give a price now.

HIRE PURCHASE OF MOTOR VEHICLES

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure that hire purchase contracts are endorsed on the registration books of all motor vehicles subject to such contracts.
This is rather a legal matter and as I am not a member of the legal profession I hope that if, perhaps, my legal phrasing is not all it should be the House will be patient with me.
The object of my proposed Bill is to close a loophole in the law with regard to vehicles bought under a hire-purchase agreement. During recent years it has often occurred that a hirer of a motor vehicle purports to sell it for cash to a purchaser without disclosing the existence of the hire-purchase agreement. The vendor is guilty of a criminal offence for which he can be imprisoned, but that is little compensation to the purchaser of the vehicle, because he may be sued by the true owner, in other words, the hire-purchase company, for the return of the vehicle or for the balance outstanding under the hire-purchase agreement.
Legally, it is no defence to the purchaser that he purchased a vehicle in good faith and without notice of the rights of the true owner. The purchaser's only remedy at law is to sue the vendor for the return of his money. In practice, this right of action is of little avail, because the vendor is, in all probability, in prison and almost invariably without the necessary financial means to satisfy the judgment.
This unsatisfactory state of affairs was brought to my notice by legal friends of mine in Newcastle and in subsequent investigations I have discovered that there is a widely held view within the legal profession that the existing state of the law is unsatisfactory from the point of view of an innocent purchaser.
Only two weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Rees) had this state of affairs pointed out to him by members of the legal profession in Swansea. To give point to the widespread occurrences of this practice, I am informed that in Swansea alone there have been 18 cases recently. It is, therefore, to prevent this situation

from arising that I seek leave to introduce this Bill today.
The proposed Bill is entitled, "Hire Purchase of Motor Vehicles: Bill to ensure that hire purchase contracts are endorsed on the registration books of all motor vehicles subject to such contracts", and its provisions are threefold. First, to make it the responsibility of the lawful owner of a motor vehicle, who is not also the person registered with the local authority as the person keeping the vehicle, to endorse a note of his interest on the registration book which is in the possession of the hirer. Secondly, to provide that if the owner fails to carry out this obligation his rights should be of no avail against a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the owner's interest. Thirdly, to require the local authority to maintain a register of the lawful owners of all motor vehicles.
No doubt there are arguments which may be advanced against the Bill, and three arguments which spring to mind I intend to deal with now. First, it may be said that the hirer may object to publicity being given to the fact that his vehicle is subject to a hire-purchase agreement. This is, to my mind, a somewhat old-fashioned argument, particularly in view of the tremendous increase in hire-purchase business in recent years. In any case, the hirer is obliged to produce the registration book only to the local taxation office and to a prospective purchaser of the vehicle. If he shows the book on any other occasion, then that is his own affair.
Secondly, it may be said that the purpose of the registration book is to facilitate the collection of Excise duties and not to act as a document of title. Certainly, I would agree that the primary use of the book is for Excise purposes, but is that a valid reason for saying that a secondary use should not be introduced? Indeed, there is a precedent to this, because the issue of supplementary petrol coupons was recorded on the book in the days of petrol rationing. I would also point out that there would be no need for any change in the layout of the registration book. There is ample space on page 3 which is not now used. The left-hand column could be used to record the commencement of a hire-purchase agreement and the right hand


column to record the termination of the agreement.
Thirdly, I suppose that the hire-purchase companies may object to being obliged to undertake extra clerical work, but if the Bill should become law then they would spend less time tracing and recovering vehicles which their hirers had purported to sell. The companies would also not suffer from the ill will created through the forced recovery of a vehicle from an innocent purchaser.
I believe that the existing state of the law is highly unsatisfactory in that it makes this particular type of fraudulent conduct by hirers so easy. Therefore, I believe that the proposals embodied in the proposed Bill are doubly beneficial in that they will help to prevent a potential criminal from committing an offence, and, at the same time, protect an innocent purchaser from suffering financial loss.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Montgomery, Dr. Alan Glyn, Mr. Rees, Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Compton Carr, Mr. Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Hocking, and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

HIRE PURCHASE OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Bill to ensure that hire purchase contracts are endorsed on the registration books of all motor vehicles subject to such contracts, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 24th March, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

NORTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

3.37 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. lain Macleod): When, yesterday, following my statement in the House, we discussed the constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia there was a general desire for an urgent and early debate which the Leader of the Opposition said he hoped would be of a constructive and exploratory character, and I think that we all also felt, on both sides, that the gravity of the situation was such that we wanted to choose our words very carefully indeed in commenting upon the Government's proposals.
Of course, the news that has come today, none of it unexpected to the Government, both of the rejection of the plan by Sir Roy Welensky and of the resignation of some members of the United Federal Party Ministers in Northern Rhodesia, obviously underlines the gravity of the situation and makes it all the more important that we —I, in particular—should choose our words carefully today.
Yesterday, I said that when the House had had an opportunity of studying the White Paper it would see quite clearly how far apart the points of view were and have remained. Indeed, it would have been easy to have used stronger words and to have said that the points of view were irreconcilable. That is the word which was actually used by Sir John Moffat, when he spoke at a Press conference yesterday at Lusaka and said:
All the opportunities for a co-operative, peaceful period of evolution are there in the new Constitution if the Northern Rhodesian people like to take them. But if one race is determined to cause trouble, that period of peaceful evolution will not be possible, and the blame will rest on those who cause trouble. In my opinion, the new Constitution is a remarkably successful compromise between irreconcilable outlooks.
Now I believe that this is the hope and, at the same time, the challenge of the plans that we put before the House, and when one finds oneself, as I have often


done in my present job, and in my previous job, in the position of having to judge somehow between two points of view which seem impossible to bring together, it is not, of course, always wise to take the middle course; but it is not always wrong to do so, either.
In one sentence, the heart of the case which I should like to put, and put briefly because I know that many hon. Members will wish to speak, is that in this situation what the Government have done is right and is sound. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) yesterday drew attention, quite rightly, to what is said in the Monckton Report. I am sure that he is right in saying that what is said in that Report was a major factor in the minds of African thinkers in thinking that that conveyed the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant in specifically racial terms a majority in the Legislative Council.
I think that we should put on record precisely what the Monckton Commission said, because it dealt with this matter only in passing. It said:
Most of us do not wish to make any precise suggestions which might embarrass these negotiations, but we are content to reoommend that there should be an African majority in the Legislature and an unofficial majority in the Executive Council so constituted as to reflect the composition of the Legislature. Some of us feel that the time has not yet come for an African majority in the Legislature. Others feel that there should be an African majority in the Executive Council as well as in the Legislature.
I admire very greatly the Monckton Report and I believe that it is an invaluable contribution to the thinking of those who have to try to clarify the position of these three Territories. But I have always thought, both here and in their wider extension of thought to the conception of parity within the Federation, and a parity within parity for Northern Rhodesia, that the one criticism that can fairly be levelled against that is that it was purely a racial approach. For that reason I believe, as I said yesterday, that one of the dissenting notes is more wisely argued than the majority recommendation itself.
The position of Her Majesty's Government, therefore, was this. If we had thought it right to go for a racial vote—and I believe that it is a false analogy with Nyasaland to suggest that we should —we should have to decide whether we

were to have about 45 elected members in the proportions 22–22, 23–21, or 21–23. But if one were to seek to find, as we did, right from my first speech on 19th December, a non-racial approach to this problem one could not at the same time build an assured racial majority into the structure. I believe, therefore, that the method of election of the national seats is and will prove to be, under criticism, the best method that one can find for ensuring that, at the same time, one has a substantial increase in the number of Africans on the Legislative Council and one is encouraging a non-racial approach that will cut across the monolithic blocks of the two rolls.
I want to deal with the criticisms that the suggestions put forward yesterday are vague and incomplete. First, I think that we would all agree, on reflection—and hon. Members passed from this point quickly yesterday—that it is not possible, in London, for the delimitation of constituencies and allied matters to be discussed in conference. After all, we do not do that here. We may have a Representation of the People Bill, but the work is done by a Boundary Commission. In exactly the same way, in every constitutional conference that I can remember and certainly in every one on Colonial Territories over which I have presided, these matters have been left either to working parties or to the Governor, with advice, in the territory concerned.
Secondly, I am asked why I went into some detail, as the White Paper does, on the lower roll and gave only an outline of the thinking on the upper roll, although it is made clear that there will be changes in the upper roll and the added footnote shows approximately the extent of these changes as far as they affect the African vote. I will give the House the reason exactly as I gave it to the conference and the House will have to judge whether it is a good or a bad reason.
I said, "In the end, these matters must be for submission by the Governor to-myself, but I think it right because all the parties that are most concerned with the representation of the lower roll are here at Lancaster House to give you in some detail what I think the approach might be to the lower roll. But I will only give that thinking in outline as far as the upper roll is concerned, because two-thirds


of those who form the Legislative Council are not here and between them they represent the two parties perhaps with particular influence and interest in the upper roll".
I said, "If this position had been reversed and the European parties had been alone attending and the African parties had not, I would have gone into detail on the upper roll and only have sketched my reasons for advance on the lower".
The third point on which criticism is made is that this considerable extension of the lower roll may result in the swamping of that roll by persons who do not measure up to the standard required for the franchise. In the first place, the relative sizes of the two rolls are unimportant as far as elections for the national seats are concerned. Indeed, it has been suggested that a boycott might be effective in this field. As anyone who has had time to study the matter will have clearly seen, the only effect of a boycott would be to make certain that one's opponent was returned.
But among the categories which we have added to the lower roll are, in my view, precisely the sort of people who are responsible people and on whom the running of the country, particularly at local level, so much depends—councillors, native authorities, headmen and ex-Service men. All these are categories which I should have thought everybody would gladly see added to the franchise, even though for these categories they are literate for the purpose of filling a form in the vernacular rather than in English.
I should like to restate briefly the position of the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government on the subject of constitutional advance in the Northern Territories. First, there is a clear obligation on us to consult. It is laid down in the 1953 White Paper and, obviously, as I said earlier, to consult implies to take into account the representations that are made. Secondly, the decision in these matters is for Her Majesty's Government, and I cannot put this in clearer words than were used by my noble Friend Lord Chandos, as he now is, when he was the Secretary of State for the Colonies in this House.
My noble Friend said:
I cannot repeat often enough what I have said in this House before, that the Federal Constitution gives the Federal Government no power either to retard or to accelerate the political advancement of Africans in any of the constituent Territories; no power to interfere with the Territorial Governments on this matter. I am thinking particularly, of course, of the two Northern Territories."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 901–2.]
As for the position of the United Federal Party in Northern Rhodesia, in my view it made a profound mistake by not attending the resumed conference in London, particularly so soon after they had been so critical of African leaders who had not attended the Federal Conference. Nevertheless, it is of great importance in the talks that the Governor will have in Lusaka that he should be able, if people are willing to meet him, to get the points of view of all people. I hope very much that the United Federal Party in Northern Rhodesia will, on those terms, consult with the Governor so that the final recommendations that he puts to me will be as widely representative as possible of thinking in that territory.
There were two particular points raised yesterday during the attempts to suggest that we should have an immediate debate under Standing Order No. 9, with which I should like to deal now. First, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that there might be plans to arrest African political leaders on their return to the territory. Let me say categorically that there is no truth in that. There is no justification for the suggestion that any of those who have attended the constitutional talks in London are in danger of arrest on their return to Lusaka or are likely to incur such danger so long, of course, as they do not by subsequent actions place themselves in jeopardy of the law.

Mr. John Stonehouse: What does that mean?

Mr. Macleod: It means that I cannot give a guarantee for the conduct of people in the future. Nobody could possibly expect me to go beyond that.
The other point was raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who referred to Press reports to the effect that units of Britain's Strategic Reserve were being prepared to fly to Lusaka to help the Federal Government to deal with trouble arising


from the imposition of the Constitution. I should like to assure her and the House that that report was incorrect.
I wonder whether, as we discuss this matter, we can see whether the differences between us are really as wide as we may think. I remember very well a speech by the Leader of the Opposition, one of the first speeches to which I listened about fifteen months ago after I had become Secretary of State for the Colonies. He urged, on 27th October, 1959, that there should be an early and substantial extension of the franchise in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. These are his words:
there must at least be such an extension as will give Nyasaland a majority of African representatives in the Legislature and in Northern Rhodesia—and these are modest requests—at least parity between Africans and Europeans." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1959; Vol. 612. c. 62.]
The Leader of the Opposition was of course, urging that these discussions should take place before the Federal Conference was called. But, in fact, one of the conferences took place before the Federal Conference was called and the other was held concurrently with it. On the basis of those words, I find it hard to believe that there is really a great gulf between us in the approach that we wish to see to the two Northern Territories of the Federation.
At all times when one has to study Colonial Territory problems there are those—these are the faint hearts—who look for a course in which there is no risk. There is no such course. There is no safety for us in any particular course. Every course that one can put forward is fraught with danger, including the one that I am recommending to the House now.
When I spoke a few weeks ago, at the Central Hall, to a great gathering of young people who were absorbed in and thrilled with the problems of Africa, as I am, I said that the Secretary of State for the Colonies every day, and sometimes a dozen times a day, had to walk this tightrope of decision. There is risk always in whatever he does. In Her Majesty's Government we have had no illusions about the fierceness of the reaction that would come from the policies that we have thought right to put forward.
Nevertheless, the position must surely be that, however the tides of criticism, comment and even abuse may ebb and flow, there is only one thing that Her Majesty's Government can do, and that is to remember their responsibilities to all men of all races in that territory, to put forward their policies and, having done that, to hold steadfast on course. That is what we have done, and that is what we propose to do.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: Those cheers must certainly encourage the Colonial Secretary, but I think that he would be even more encouraged if he could hear the echoes of them coming back from Lusaka.
I divide this problem sharply into two parts. One is the Government's handling of it, and the other is the merits of the proposal which the Colonial Secretary is putting forward. Whatever may be said about the merits of the Colonial Secretary's case, there can be no argument that on the manner of its presentation he and the Prime Minister between them have managed to discourage and offend every single one of the major parties attending or not attending the conference.
It is all very well to do good, but it ought as well to look as though one is doing good. If the Colonial Secretary really wants blessings and hosannas to fall upon him, he ought at least to get the encouragement of those who are to benefit from the blessings that he is intending to confer. It seems to me that the Government are open to very considerable criticism. If, as the Colonial Secretary says, his policy is right, he has not been able to get any support for it from any major quarter. This is, therefore, the first complaint that I would bring against the Government.
The Colonial Secretary said that he wondered whether the gulf between him self and us was as wide as is made out. I have not been conscious of any gulf over the last eighteen months. Indeed. I would tell him that the gulf between himself and myself is much less than the gulf between himself and his right hon Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I am not here this afternoon, nor was I standing at this


Dispatch Box yesterday—nor have I been all the way through this sequence of events on the development of either the Federal Conference or the Northern Rhodesia Conference—to attack what I have understood to be—and what I hope I may still understand to be—the Colonial Secretary's basic ideas on this problem.
All say that they favour non-racial franchises and non-racial elections. It is like the blessed word "Mesopotamia". The United Federal Party says it, the United National Independence Party says it, the African National Congress says it, and the Central African Liberal Party says it. We all say that we are non-racial now. It is like the phrase, "We are all Socialists now", though I appreciate that there are a lot of different interpretations of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Mr. Speaker, I forgot. I wish to withdraw that last remark. I had forgotten that we have now entered a new phase of Tory philosophy.
Nevertheless, the Colonial Secretary might ask himself why it is that he has gat every single one of the major parties attending these conferences up against him. I think that the reason is this. He was believed to be in favour of an African majority. I emphasise "believed to be". How this misunderstanding came about is quite easy to see. The Monckton Commission—the Colonial Secretary has read the appropriate paragraph, paragraph 111 recommended that there should be an African majority. I do not think that it is being unfair to the right hon. Gentleman to say that in the months that have passed since the publication of the Report he has done nothing to discourage that view. Indeed, many people who have seen him have come away believing that that view represented his own.
Perhaps it did not, but if there has been misunderstanding, then he is responsible for it. If he never intended that there should be an African majority, he should have taken a much earlier opportunity than he did to try to show those people who were putting the idea forward that Monckton and he were not in agreement. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that he proves his case by putting in the White Paper the full text of the speech he made at the opening of the

conference. This is what he said in that speech:
The means by which this might be achieved"—
that is, the development of a non-racial approach—
will be for the Conference to consider, as will also be the kind of balance of representation enjoyed by the main communities in the Legislature, e.g. whether at this next stage we should move into arrangements which will produce in practice something like equal numbers of Europeans and non-European members in the Legislative Council, or something short of that, or something going a little beyond it.
The right hon. Gentleman was certainly backing his horses all possible ways at once. Is it not correct, none the less, that his very anxiety to include this speech in the White Paper is, in itself, evidence that he feels it necessary to deny these very widespread rumours and the widespread belief that he has, up to now, been encouraging a belief in an African majority? If such a belief had not been widespread there would have been no point in putting this long speech into the White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman has brought a great many troubles upon his own shoulders in this matter, quite apart from the invaluable assistance which he has had from his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I would not care to leave the Prime Minister out of the reckoning. The 96 Government back benchers who are critical of him are another problem for the Colonial Secretary.
The Prime Minister's rôle in this has been even more curious than that of the Colonial Secretary, because the Prime Minister labours under a persistent disadvantage in the Central African Federation. The Europeans there do not trust him. It is as simple as that. They believed that he had given an assurance to Sir Roy Welensky that the Monckton Commission would not be able to consider the question of secession. It was for that reason that the Labour Party stayed out of the Commission. We thought that we had read the Prime Minister's verbiage correctly. So did Sir Roy Welensky. Sir Roy believes that he was taken in on that occasion. He does not intend that the Prime Minister shall catch him twice. There is a Derbyshire miners' saying which Sir Roy Welensky, with his well-known bluntness, may consider applicable. It is, "Never let your bottom be kicked by the same boot twice".
That is the basis of Sir Roy's approach to this problem. If Members opposite want to know what standing the Prime Minister has over there, they can gauge it from the phrase which is in current circulation. It is called "Doing a Macmillan". In Central African parlance, "Doing a Macmillan" is interpreted like this, "I did not say it; if I did, I did not mean it; and in either case I was misreported".
Sir Roy Welensky has summed it up. The Prime Minister has gone through the phases of "MacWonder", then "Mac-Tarnish", and now Sir Roy Welensky calls him "MacJellybones". We shall not get a solution to this problem until it is clearly understood, both by Africans and by Europeans, that the British Government are speaking with one voice and know their mind.
Part of the trouble from which the party opposite is suffering at the present time is that it has a split mind on colonial questions, particularly about relations between black and white. That is why the Colonial Secretary, in the middle of the most delicate and difficult negotiations, was not only publicly insulted by Sir Roy Welensky, but stabbed in the back by 96 of his own back benchers.
I differentiate sharply between the conduct of these negotiations and the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. I now come to that part of his proposals. Yesterday, he pulled me up when I asked whether these proposals meant an African majority. He was right in doing so, but I was using shorthand and it is a little difficult, when asking supplementary questions, to rephrase interrogatively what one has written. The question I put was not what I meant to say.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and I mean the same things. I did not understand the proposals in the White Paper, and I will rephrase my question. What the people out there want to know, and what we want to know, is: are his electoral proposals intended to ensure that a majority of the voters get the Members of Parliament they want and not, conversely, that a minority of voters elect the Members? That is the point.
I have done some arithmetic, as far as I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I ask the House to

accept that arithmetic for the time being —at least until it has a chance to get at it. Take a constituency of 5,000, with 1,000 European voters and 4,000 African. My conclusion from the Colonial Secretary's proposals is that, in that constituency, it would be possible for a European standing against an African to be elected with 1,301 votes, and for an African with 3,700 votes to be declared the defeated candidate. This is because the right hon. Gentleman says that we must take the percentage cast on each roll and divide it by two.
I can see the skilfulness of it, but I am bound to say that if the effect of his skilfulness is to lead to a position in which the candidate with two or three times the number of votes cast for the man who comes second is declared defeated, then his Constitution will not stand up very long, no matter what percentage he produces.
This is not yet a non-racial election. By introducing the device of the percentage, the right hon. Gentleman is offsetting the tremendous numerical advantage Africans will have in most of the constituencies. He may not want to do that, but I would far sooner that he did it by reserved seats for Africans or Europeans than by pretending that a racial franchise is non-racial.
If the right hon. Gentleman does that, he will depart from the concept of democracy and democratic practice which we want to inculcate. The Africans think that it is all rigged. They think that it is all "phoney".

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East): It is too clever.

Mr. Callaghan: Maybe it is, but I do not wish to attack his bona fides on this. I am sure, however, that he is in error if his percentages and his franchise are to lead to the sort of result which I have outlined—and I believe that the illustration I gave is an accurate one.

Mr. Macleod: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The approach will be the one he outlines, but there is a grave disadvantage in it in that reserve seats would automatically bring a purely racial element into it. I am prepared to admit that there is also a considerable disadvantage in the approach I put forward, in that it means equalising the voting powers of the rolls that are, in


total, unequal. But I believe that the second disadvantage is smaller than the first. That is the point at issue between us.

Mr. Callaghan: That may be so. It is for the House to judge on this matter of whether it is a basic point or rather one of approach. But I say that when the right hon. Gentleman is finished with this House he has to account for himself to the Africans and Europeans. I cannot see the people out there for long accepting a Constitution in which the candidate who gets more votes is not the successful candidate because the Colonial Secretary takes the percentages and divides by two. He takes a percentage and divides by two. I leave the point there.
I come now to one or two matters that I welcome in the White Paper. First, I welcome the substantial increase in the African electorate from 7,000 to 70,000. That is quite a substantial jump, although we must not forget it is still small in relation to the overwhelming Northern Rhodesian African population. However, it is a substantial increase. New categories have been brought into the franthise that should have been brought in a long time ago. I am glad to find them there now. With the one most welcome reduction in the qualifications for which the Colonial Secretary is asking, they are more in line with those required in Nyasaland than they were before.
The Colonial Secretary will have to fill out this sketch much more carefully before it can be called a plan, and I would ask him to consider doing it in London. In view of the present temper in Northern Rhodesia, I do not believe that there is much likelihood that this sketch can be transformed into a successful working plan there. I believe that in the atmosphere of London, where people are away from substantial pressures, there is a much better chance of doing this job than there is out there.
The Colonial Secretary said that he had not disclosed the details of the upper roll because two-thirds of the parties were absent from the conference. Why were they absent? Why were they not there? Because, as the Colonial Secretary said, they boycotted the conference. Supposing, when he gets back to Lusaka. the boycott goes on, is the Governor then to disclose the details of the upper roll to those who do attend the conference?

Mr. Macleod: indicated assent.

Mr. Callaghan: That is a great reassurance and it should go on record that if the United Federal Party boycott the conference in Lusaka then the Governor is empowered to disclose the details of the upper roll and, presumably, to negotiate about it with those attending the conference. That is as I understand the position and the Colonial Secretary nods his assent.
If that is the case, I would like publicly to say what I have already said privately this morning, to Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, that he should go to this conference and continue these negotiations. If any words of mine carry any weight at all in Northern Rhodesia—and they carry far less weight than some hon. Gentlemen opposite sometimes pretend—I hope that the parties which Mr. Kenneth Kaunda leads will give him authority to go into these negotiations and not follow the example of the United Federal Party. I believe that that would be the best thing in the interests of the people there.
We should all recognise the malevolent influence of the Federal Government in these discussions. It has been best summed up by Sir Arthur Benson who, I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, was the Governor of Northern Rhodesia who immediately preceded the present Governor Sir Evelyn Hone. He retired only last year after several years as Governor of Northern Rhodesia. In a letter which he wrote to The Times on Monday—and I ask hon. Members to listen with great care, because it sums up my own view which I have endeavoured, obviously unsuccessfully, to put for several years, he says:
It is the Federal Government (not the concept of federation) for its actions, its omissions. and its repeated declarations of intention, which all Northern Rhodesian Africans fear, arid, therefore, hate.
Those are not my words, but the words of a Governor of Northern Rhodesia who has only recently retired from fulfilling his mission.
Sir Arthur Benson continues by saying that the Africans
…will reject any North Rhodesian Constitution which does not give them the casting vote on the question of secession.
But it is the British Government which they blame for their increasing despair.


They blame the Government, Sir Arthur Benson says, for not standing up to the dictates of Sir Roy Welensky. He continues:
Hence the vast support which African nationalist leaders command, and hence—and hence only—are those leaders supported when they demand independence. 'Britain has abdicated: we won't be ruled by Salisbury'.
When will hon. Gentlemen opposite understand this? How many times has it to be said? This is a basic factor in this situation and until it is realised by the 96, as I believe it has been recognised by the Colonial Secretary, we will continue to get into these constant troubles.
Sir Roy Welensky is making moves today. What is the position about troops? Territorials have been called up. Unless there is a coup d'état, they can only be used if the Governor calls upon them. However, I do not trust the Federal authorities in this matter. Territorial troops were called up without the consent of the Governor. He was told after they had been called up. Are Her Majesty's Government endeavouring to make sure that Federal troops will not be used once again in advance of any request from the Governor?
The Federal Government have only themselves to blame if these suspicions are aroused. I put to the Colonial Secretary and the House what Mr. Kenneth Kaunda said to me, "I disagree profoundly with the Colonial Secretary that Federal troops have a calming and sobering influence on the people of Northern Rhodesia. They do not, because when they see Federal troops marching around the territory they say"—as Sir Arthur Benson says "the British Government have abdicated and we must defend ourselves."
This is a very serious consequence of calling up the troops and I ask the Colonial Secretary to give us an assurance that the British Government will seek the clearest understanding from Sir Roy Welensky that he will not use these troops until the British Government ask him to use them. I hope that they will not do so. There is plenty of time for a reply. I do not press for it, but I believe that assurance must be given.
It is not our desire, on this side of the House, to vote on the Adjournment tonight. T would dearly like to vote

against the Government's handling of the situation, because I believe that if we did vote there might be many hon. Gentlemen opposite who would follow us into the Lobby, whatever they think about the merits. At any rate, their hearts would be there even though their feet were tramping elsewhere. But I do not wish to do that. I do not want the Federal Government to get any comfort out of this debate and I would like the message to go out from the House of Commons to the Federal Government, quite simply, that the House of Commons will be united in resisting any attempt by Sir Roy Welensky or by his Government to take over the constitutional responsibilities of the British Government. If 'the British Government resist that, as they must, then they will have our support.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary believes in multiracial partnership and federation. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) opposes federation. It is, therefore, natural that on this problem his view and mine differ considerably. In the course of his speech he made what I thought was a brutal, savage and completely unjustified attack on the position of the Prime Minister in Central Africa. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which Prime Minister?"] The British Prime Minister.
The hon. Member went on to say that we overestimated the amount of weight that he—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East—carried in Central Africa, but I can tell him that in the course of the fourteen days during which I was there with Members of his own party—and if I am speaking untruthfully I hope that they will challenge my statement, if they are in the House—whenever I met representatives of organised labour they told me that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East would talk to organised labour only if it had a black skin; that he had been rude, and that they bitterly resented the fact that those people who had formerly been his colleagues got no help or support from him when they went out there.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that if he believes


it. I would merely repudiate it completely. I would only say that I went out there with a combined Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Delegation, and that one of my colleagues was a Government Whip and another the present Minister of Power. I hope that they will help me in my repudiation of the allegation that I was personally rude to or ignored any white trade unionists.
It is true that we all had a difficult passage with a group of European mineworkers. I am not unique in that. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) were also with me at the time, and I hope that they will all agree that we endeavoured to fulfil our programme as completely as we could, and that we met everybody with courtesy and endeavoured to listen to the points of view.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Turton: I have repeated what was said to me out there for one reason: the hon. Members for Cardiff, South East, made an unjustified attack on the Prime Minister's standing in Central Africa. If the hon. Member went out there he would find that he was not welcome in the company of any European trade unionist.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I was one of those who were with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) out there, and I can only say that my understanding of this incident was that a group of European mineworkers complained that they had visited the House of Commons in London and had not been able to meet my hon. Friend. It is only fair to make the point that I found a number of Europeans in the Federation who were not ardent supporters of my hon. Friend, but I could in no way be associated with the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman that is the general view of European trade unionists out there.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member has confirmed what I said. That shows the unwisdom of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, in trying to blacken the Prime Minister's name in Central Africa.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Turton: I will give way to anybody who was in Central Africa with me and who can either challenge or confirm my account of what happened out there. I have already given way to one such Member.
I believe in multi-racial partnership and federation. In the last few weeks my one concern has been to see that Her Majesty's Government kept steadfast to their course, as my right hon. Friend said in his speech they were trying to do. I therefore asked him, on 7th February, whether his view of the principles for Northern Rhodesian Constitutional Conference was the same as that put forward in the 1958 White Paper. He replied that my supplementary question did not permit of the answer "Yes" or "No".
Yesterday I put the same question to him, when he said:
…the heart of the matter, which is the national balance, I regard as being entirely in line with the principles behind the 1958 proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 329.]
That was not my question. I asked whether the Government's policy was consistent with the 1958 constitutional proposals. If we are to get the confidence of all sides in this matter it is vital that we should pursue a consistent policy. We must show that we are working to principles laid down before.
That is why I want to ask my right hon. Friend a few questions regarding the 1958 White Paper in relation to the present position. I wish to quote from that White Paper—which is Cmnd. 530. In Part IV, paragraph 19, relating to the principles of constitutional change, it says:
All parties are agreed that the new constitution must win the confidence of all the peoples of Northern Rhodesia; the basic lines of constitutional advance now to be settled"—
this was in 1958—
should, therefore, be durable, and not subject to drastic change every few years.
I want to put to my right hon. Friend a question which was yesterday addressed to him by his predecessor, who is now in another place. Why was it necessary, after two years, to change this constitution? What was the new factor that made him break the principle laid down in paragraph 19?
My second question relates to paragraph 20, which says:
The franchise must, therefore, be one which will give the vote to those who are contributing to the wealth and welfare of the country and who are capable of exercising it with judgment and public spirit.
Those words have a particular meaning. They were the result of Sir Robert Tredgold's Report on the Franchise Commission, from which I shall quote. I want to read the substance of the proposals there set out because they are very important in the light of the present situation in Africa.
When Lord Boyd of Merton settled the 1958 constitutional proposals he was acting on the advice contained in Sir Robert Tredgold's Report of the Franchise Commission. Page 4 of that Report contains these words:
In some countries the extension of the franchise to people who were incapable of exercising it with judgment, or who lacked the necessary political tradition, has led to the breakdown of popular government. There is much evidence of the danger on the one part of power falling into the hands of political bosses, and, on the other, of the growth of a multiplicity of warring factions that find it impossible to unite in sufficient strength to form an efficient administration. Indeed, there is good reason to think that Fascism, and similar totalitarian systems, are a reaction from popular government carried beyond the point when the majority of the voters are worthy of the privilege of voting. We are entirely satisfied that a country is amply justified in making an endeavour to confine the franchise to those of its inhabitants who are capable of exercising it with reason, judgment and public spirit.
In view of the fact that the franchise was settled on that basis only two years ago, will my right hon. Friend state whether he thinks that this extension, which has been so hurriedly proposed, is consistent with that principle?

Mr. Austen Albu: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that Germany and Italy are two countries which are not suitable for the full use of the democratic franchise?

Mr. Turton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I was reading. I was reading the Report by Sir Robert Tredgold of the Franchise Commission on which this 1958 proposal was hung. That was the reason for it. If we are to be consistent with 1958, I was asking my right hon. Friend whether he was still following up Sir Robert Tredgold's advice that was given three years ago.

My right hon. Friend will remember that in the 1958 White Paper it was said that the lower roll franchise was to be temporary, whereas the upper roll was to be permanent. The idea was that the advancement of the whole community would lead eventually to a common roll. Am I to understand that that is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government? The White Paper issued yesterday is strangely silent on that point.
My last question on this point deals with the whole problem of what I call multi-racial voting.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is not Sir Robert Tredgold, whom the right hon. Gentleman has been quoting, the gentleman who resigned in protest at the totalitarian behaviour of the Federal Government?

Mr. Turton: He is, and that is why I think it is important to people like myself, who met Sir Robert Tredgold and who have a high opinion of his judgment. I consider that his authority should carry weight in the House of Commons and that all who have met him believe him to be a man of sound judgment on these matters. That is why I put that question and gave the House such a long quotation from his Report.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Sir Robert Tredgold resigned because of the action of the Southern Rhodesian Government?

Mr. Turton: I do not want to get involved in that.
My last point concerns the Constitution. As I see it, the 1958 Constitution, the Lennox-Boyd Constitution, had 18 constituencies where the voters on both rolls voted for the candidates. In other words, there were 18 multi-racial seats. In addition, there were four seats for which only one roll voted. We could say that there were four racial seats and 18 multi-racial seats.
In this Constitution there are 15 national seats which, as voted upon by both rolls, we can call multi-racial, but there are 30 seats that will be voted for only by one roll. Surely the whole principle of 18 out of the 22 voted on by the two rolls has been entirely changed when one finds 30 out of 45 being voted on by the single roll. That is my great accusation against this White Paper.
I can see a great case for altering the 1958 proposals to the extent of increasing the number of constituencies in the rural areas, so keeping on the framework of the 1958 White Paper, and giving more multi-racial seats in certain parts of the country where the Europeans are few and the Africans are many. It is clear that in those parts of the country there would as a result be far more African representatives on the Legislative Council. That is one of the things I am as anxious to achieve as is my right hon. Friend, but it must be in accordance with the constitutional principles laid down as recently as two years ago.
When hon. Members from both sides of the House and I were in Southern Rhodesia—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who were the representatives?

Mr. Turton: I will give the hon. Gentleman the list later. I can tell him who went out. I know that many hon. Members want to speak and I will be as short as possible. Let me make my speech, and after it we can talk it all over.
We are concerned that in Southern Rhodesia there was no African representative on the Territorial Legislative Council. We are concerned that there was no African Minister. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, that disability appeared to be removed by his skill in negotiating a complete change, and he placed the Southern Rhodesian Territorial Government on the same pattern or plan of multi-racial voting that we had under the Lennox-Boyd Constitution in Northern Rhodesia.
That has now been repudiated by Mr. Nkomo. I ask my right hon. Friend what prospects there are for the implementation of that agreement to change the Southern Rhodesian Territorial Government basis to a multi-racial plan. But I also want to ask why, at the moment when we are changing Southern Rhodesia from the old uni-racial plan to this multi-racial two-roll plan, we are doing the opposite in Northern Rhodesia?
I do not like these numbers 15, 15, and 15. I think that it is most important that we in the House of Commons, even though we may not all agree with federation,

should try to get the position where African votes for European and European votes for African. No hon. Member believes in the colour bar or in racial discrimination. What we ought to try to do is to bring the educated African up to take full responsibility, to break down racial divisions, and to stimulate the growth of parties in the country. It would have been far better if we had some provision for two-member constituencies where two candidates could be put up, one African and one European. One of the defects of this, shall I call it, "Murray-fields" Plan—all blacks, all whites and all greys—is that one cannot get the two-member constituency. In that case, if one can extend the 15 multi-racial constituencies up to, say, 20, and reduce the number of the others accordingly it would be a nearer approach to the Lennox-Boyd plan.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the revision of the plan on those lines. As was the case with most of the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I think we all feel that we ought to be restrained in what we say at the present time. I do not believe that the leaders of either side whom I met in Central Africa want to see law and order disturbed in Northern Rhodesia. I believe that if we in this House exercise restraint, and have good sense, good sense will prevail in Northern Rhodesia.
I am worried about this plan. It has neither won the confidence of the Africans nor of any substantial body of Europeans. We have to remember what this House often forgets, that in Northern Rhodesia there are two African parties which do not believe in federation. There are two European parties which do not believe in federation, and there is only one party, the United Federal Party, which contains both Africans and Europeans who believe in federation. That is the difficult problem we are facing.
If we are to make this multi-racial settlement a success—and I believe that so much in Africa depends on our ability to make it a success—I beg my right hon. Friends to take back this White Paper, to remodel it and to discuss it where it should be discussed, in Northern Rhodesia, and not, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East suggested, in London. By doing that I believe that


they will engender greater hope for the races in Central Africa to live and work together in unity.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said he is greatly concerned that federation should succeed. I should have thought it was almost unanimously agreed that federation will certainly not succeed unless, first, the Africans have some confidence in their future and, secondly, that constitutional progress is made in the three territories concerned with federation. If the Government take back this scheme and stop the proposed advance, such as it is—it is small enough—this would certainly be the death blow to any chance of federation.
The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by defending the Prime Minister with a loyalty proper from an hon. Member on that side of the House. The fact is that, whether he likes it or not, Sir Roy Welensky has made clear that in his view the Prime Minister misled him. This is not something thought up by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It is something which Sir Roy Welensky has said, and when the Prime Minister gave a further explanation and said that no member of the Monckton Commission had questioned the Commission's right to discuss contracting out Sir Roy denied that, too. He said it had been raised by his representatives with the Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked what had happened to divert the Government from the course laid down two or three years ago. One thing has happened. The Prime Minister went to South Africa and said that the wind of change was blowing. Either the right hon. Gentleman meant something by that or he did not. The Africans thought that he did mean something, and they are expecting, therefore, that a change should take place and rather more quickly than was contemplated three or four years ago.
To me, the Colonial Secretary seems to be reaping the whirlwind. He is suffering from the Government, saying one thing and meaning another, or saying one thing and doing nothing whatever about it. Now in Africa something is expected from their words, and they are not find-

ing it so easy to skate off by using phrases which they do not mean to put into practice. I believe that the Africans would be well advised to try to work the proposal which has been put forward by the Colonial Secretary. But, if they are to be expected to do that, we must have some clarification on one or two points It has been said that we should not say anything in this House which is liable to exacerbate the situation. I wish that could be said rather more forcibly to Sir Roy Welensky. This restraint which is always urged upon us does not seem to have got as far as Salisbury. I think that a little plain speaking will not do much harm.
The first point is there must be some consistency throughout Africa. We should treat African aspirations as a whole throughout the continent. They look on the continent as one and their progress as one united advance. What can be done in, say, Nyasaland cannot be said to be impossible, say, in Northern Rhodesia simply because of the will white minority. Secondly, I think it is extremely difficult to understand the complicated and vague proposals in the White Paper. The proposed constitution is worthy of the Abbé Sieyès. It requires mathematical calculations. These proposals are put before the Africans who are said to be simple people with no long experience of a constitution such as exists in London. Surely what the African want to know is what their effect is likely to be. Does it mean that a majority of black Africans are to elect a majority in the Legislature? That is the fundamental point, and there is no skating past 'that question. Of course, the Secretary of State cannot say how they will vote, but will their votes, however they are cast, be decisive?

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it a little patronising to generalise about the Africans as if they were one lump with one point of view?

Mr. Grimond: Of course not. I only say that for my part I thought the constitution a little difficult to understand and that there might be some Africans who would not be able to understand it. I do not think I am being patronising, what I said simply seems to me to be true.
The Colonial Secretary has made play with the fact that he wants a non-racial


approach, but who started racialism? Who began the racial approach? It was not the Africans. When we are told that the Africans—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It was Lloyd George.

Mr. Grimond: It was not Lloyd George. He was Welsh, admittedly. But there is a certain amount to be said for letting the Welsh have their say, because if we do not they will have it anyway—

Mr. Harold Davies: I should say so.

Mr. Grimond: I should have thought it is hardly for the Europeans, in view of their history in this century, to set themselves up as the only people who know how to run their own affairs. It surprises me—looking back on what was done in Russia and Nazi Germany in this century—that Europeans should be so convinced that they are the people who are the only mature races in the world who can run a democratic system. That does not seem to be borne out when one looks at recent history.
Who boycotted these talks? It was not the Africans. What a row there would have been if the Africans had boycotted them as the Europeans did. If this is a mature approach to politics, it is not what would have been considered a mature approach had it been taken by the Africans.
We have to face the fact that if there is racial feeling, that racial feeling is the fault of the Europeans and they can hardly blame the Africans for being particularly chary about a non-racial approach, if in practice it means that a small racial minority is to exercise influence out of proportion to its numbers.
I am not saying that minorities should not be protected. As a Liberal, it is not for me to adopt that point of view. I am entirely in favour of minorities being protected. They have a great part to play. Ultimately, the African must take power in his own country, but in his own interests he would be well advised to make it possible for Europeans, certainly in the economic and political spheres, to play a part too. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman means by a non-racial approach it is right and proper and self-evident,

and it is what we must do. But it depends on accepting that there is a black African majority and that power in the sense of being able to elect a majority whether that majority is black or white must pass rapidly to the black Africans.
Many of us have been alarmed by the reaction of Sir Roy Welensky and the calling up of troops. Attention has been drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, to what was said in the Monckton Commission's Report about the effect of sending in white Federal troops to keep order in any of the constituent territories. I hope the Government will make quite clear that if troops are to be called in it is done on the instigation of the Governor and no one else and that these troops should be under his command and not under the command of anyone else and should not come from Southern Rhodesia.
As has been said, the real debate today is not between this side and that side, but an internal debate on the other side of the House. There is no question, too, that this Motion signed by ninety members of the Conservative Party was intended to stop the course on which the Government, we hope, was embarking. It could have had no other purpose. I should have thought that in the middle of negotiations to put down such a Motion deliberately intended to make these negotiations more difficult was an act with which I certainly disagreed and that it was a rash act by any standards whatever.
I sometimes feel that there are two standards in politics, the standard which this side of the House is expected to accept, and accepted for years over Cyprus when negotiations went on, and there is the standard which the other side of the House accepts, which means that at any moment they may stab the Government in the back if they do not like it. There are also, I think, two standards growing up in the world, and if what is now being done by Sir Roy Welensky was done by any black African it would be said that either he was simply blowing off steam, which he may be, and I hope he is, or that he is in fact preaching disloyalty and suicide. That is the truth of the matter.
Sir Roy Welensky has to live in a country of which the majority is black


and find a place for his white friends, but he will not do so by attempting to stop the British Government from going forward with a scheme which is the absolute minimum that can be accepted. I do not believe that after the language which he has himself used in the last few days such words will come as a shock to him. I believe that in this country what I would call the reasonable central body of opinion has on this occasion to be tough. We are sometimes accused of being a soft centre, but on this occasion we have to be the hard centre. We have to say things which I agree the Colonial Secretary could not say. We have to ensure that some plain speaking is done, and that it is done before this situation has drifted into the hands of extremists.
I want these further negotiations to succeed if that is possible, and I still believe that the Colonial Secretary can regain the confidence of the Africans if he makes it perfectly clear that in a very short time, with adequate protection for the minorities—because, after all, the Governor will still have his powers and none of these proposals affects the Executive Council but only the Legislative Council—that on the Legislative Council there will be a majority of people who are the Black Africans. Then, I think, these proposals may still succeed. But they will only succeed if we are fair between one community and another and are not diverted by hard words or threats from Central Africa itself.

4.54 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: As a member of the Monckton Commission, I have not previously taken part in any controversial discussions with regard to the question of the Federation or its component parts. It was always understood that we would not do so as members unless and until it became unavoidable. It was also understood, I think, that the time would come when it was the duty of any member of the Commission who is also a Member of Parliament to speak frankly and fearlessly. I feel that today it is a case of speak now or forever hold your peace.
In this debate very little has been said, except, of course, by my right hon. Friend who emphasised it, by subsequent speakers about the gravity of the present

position. I feel that we ought to recognise it in this House today. It is not a question of a party squabble. We are far above that today, or we should be. Today, not only is there a deadlock in a great Conference dealing with the future of a territory for which we are responsible, on which there are genuine differences of opinion in this House and, in some respects, maybe serious differences. There is much more than that. There is—let us face it frankly—the real danger of actual strife and bloodshed between black and white in Africa and Rhodesia. Gravest of all, there is a virtual certainty if we do not take steps to avoid it, of a head-on collision between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Government of the Federation.
Surely, in the face of those dangers, it is time for us to close our ranks, to abandon all our prejudices, if we can, and certainly to abandon some of the personalities which may be at the back of some of the things that have happened in recent weeks.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: May I interrupt the right hon. and learned Member?

Sir L. Heald: If it is necessary.

Mr. Donnelly: The right hon. and learned Member referred to the Commonwealth Government. It is not a Commonwealth Government in the fullest sense. We ought to be clear about that, because it is very important.

Sir L. Heald: I regard that as a rather legalistic point. It may be said, when I say that, that it must indeed be one. I would suggest that in these circumstances we have to try to do two things. First, we have to see what we can agree upon, and not what we have to disagree upon, in principle. Secondly, we have to see how far the present proposals carry this into effect and what suggestions we can make for improving their effect. I believe that it could be agreed that the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the opening of the Northern Rhodesian Conference stated principles which we all ought to be able to accept. In that I believe he has the overwhelming support of hon. Members on this side of the House and also the support of a very large


number of hon. Members, although I am not entitled to speak with direct knowledge of it, on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) certainly gave that impression in his speech, although, perhaps, he did it not altogether in the most graceful way.
If the result of this debate could be to make it clear that we are determined on certain principles, I believe that would have a great effect, not only in this country but throughout Africa and the Commonwealth and throughout the world, because we must remember that it is not only we in this country who regard a matter of this kind as grave: it must be a matter of great concern to anyone who thinks in any part of the world.
Let us see if we can state certain principles, which are stated actually in the Monckton Report, and which, I believe. will not be seriously disputed by anyone. Some people have said that the Monckton Report has been overtaken by events and is now irrelevant. Indeed, with Hibernian humour the Daily Express recently said that it had been consigned to the waste paper basket even before it had been printed, which seemed to be a rather wonderful thing.
If we look at the Report we find in it—I believe I am right in saying this—certain principles which we could all accept. The first is that the United Kingdom Parliament has the paramount and unescapable duty of caring for the future of the Federation and of Northern Rhodesia. As a matter of constitutional law Northern Rhodesia is a Protectorate. It is actually not even British soil as a Protectorate. The responsibility for its future must be discharged by the British Government and not either from or by Salisbury, in whatever sense one uses the word "Salisbury"
Secondly, to break up the Federation
at this crucial moment in the history of Africa would
be
an admission that there is no hope of survival for any multi-racial society on the African continent and that differences of colour and race are irreconcilable.
Those are the words of the Monckton Commission's Report, and I believe they would be generally agreed. Third, the Federation must itself
rest on a general willingness to accept it.

Law and order must be maintained, but it is out of the question to rely permanently on the force of arms in order to maintain it. No constitution can work without good will, and unless the races concerned genuinely wish to make it succeed and are prepared for this purpose not only
to meet each other's point of view
but actually
to make sacrifices".
That again is stated in the Report, and I ask the House to accept it.
Next, in Northern Rhodesia today two things are essential if we are to overcome the opposition to Federation and the fear of domination from the South. The first is a transfer of certain functions from the Central Government to the Northern Rhodesian Government, and the second a substantial increase in African political representation. Again, does anyone really dispute those things? They are what the Secretary of State said in the White Paper. But so far no one on either side from the extreme point of view has shown any willingness to make any sacrifice or to make any compromise. No one will doubt that that is true of the African extremists. We all know that. They demanded "one man one vote" and the Monckton Commission, as one finds in Chapter 12 on page 79, expressly rejected that and said that in its view the Westminster model was not suitable for a country like Northern Rhodesia at the present time.
What of the other extreme? There is a point here which I feel has not had nearly sufficient attention. The United Federal Party decided to boycott the Northern Rhodesian Conference because there was a proposal to give the Africans increased political representation. That has not been appreciated, but it is a vitally important point. Hon. Members will find it in Command Paper 1295 on page 4. After having set out the principles I have just stated, this is what the White Paper says:
The United Federal Party representatives challenged the view that there was any justification either for a substantial increase in the number of Africans in the Legislative Council, or for an extension of the franchise.
That is why they boycotted it, not because they thought that too much was being given to the Africans, but because they said they should have nothing at all given to them. How is it possible to


negotiate with people who adopt that view? On the same page it is said:
The Dominion Party took the general line that a substantial increase of African representation in legislature and an extension of the franchise would imply a departure from the policy of non-racialism, partnership and evolutionary advancement.
In other words, it took the view that the policy was that in no circumstances should there be any African political advance. In those circumstances one begins to see—if one looks at it fairly and wants to see—what the position of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary was. He found himself between these two extremes. One wonders sometimes if the old saying, "Blessed are the peacemakers" is not almost in a sense cynical at times, because they are not often blessed in politics.
Let us see where matters stand on that point. We cannot compromise on the principles I have stated. If any hon. Member thinks we could, I hope very much that when his time comes—as it will in a very few moments—he will explain which of those principles I have endeavoured to state he disagrees with and why he disagrees with them. They are stated by the Secretary of State in the White Paper in language which admits of no doubt.
I want to deal with only one matter more and I do not wish to occupy more time of the House. This is a thing which I think ought to be said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been the subject of a most violent propaganda campaign. It is very strongly resented by hon. Members—I should like to say all hon. Members on this side of the House, and I hope I can say so. It is neither fair nor true to accuse him of "selling out". That is perfectly clear now. I believe it is the duty of all decent people to agree that that suggestion is not to be maintained.
This tremendous wave of propaganda has been a rather unusual thing in our political methods here. It has even extended to The Times newspaper, not through anything The Times has done I am sure, but by the material supplied to it. I regret to say that there appears in that newspaper today a grossly misleading account of a party meeting which took place in private last night. The names of only two hon. Members who spoke are given. They both represent a particular

point of view and no indication is given that anyone spoke to the contrary effect at all. I do not mind in the least if it is said that this is a betrayal of confidence for, after all, things have gone beyond that now, but it should be stated that those two hon. Members did not find that their views were accepted by the majority of the party.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that on the ticker-tape machine the Exchange Telegraph Company put out a report exactly to the opposite sense? It only reported those who spoke in favour of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

An Hon. Member: The two things cancel each other out.

Sir L. Heald: No, I am afraid I do not regard The Times as cancelled out by the ticker-tape. I have still sufficient respect for it. The other is not intended to be a considered description but simply a "flash". No one knows that more than my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). To crown it all, the indication was given by The Times report that the most important speech and that to which the most attention was paid was that of one hon. Member, the noble Lord who represents Beaverbrook—I beg pardon, Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lamb-ton), I should say. I am not saying anything adverse whatever to the hon. Member. He was here a few moments ago. I regret that he is not here now, but I am not saying anything against him.

Mr. Turton: Did my right hon. and learned Friend warn him?

Sir L. Heald: There is nothing to warn him about. I am not saying anything hostile to him, and I have not said anything hostile so far as I know. I said that there was this statement that his, in effect, was the outstanding speech. whereas those present at the meeting will know that there were a large number of speeches made which received at least as much attention and approval as his did. It is necessary, in the interests of political decency, that these things should be said. During the past few weeks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been subject to one of the greatest strains that


any man could have. Let him be attacked and criticised fairly, but do let us stop this sniping.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: It is true that everyone on both sides of the House wants to see a satisfactory conclusion to the very unhappy state of affairs existing in the Federation at present. On the other hand, many of the difficulties with which we are faced at present and many of the difficulties which face the Federation at present are the direct result, not of particular policies of Her Majesty's Government, but of the fact that nobody in the Federation knew what the policies of Her Majesty's Government were.
I feel very strongly that one of the biggest problems in the Federation is that it is more dangerous that people should not know what the future is than that they should know about a particular type of future. It is more dangerous for there to be a situation in which both sides think that they can emerge victorious than for there to be a clear statement of which side has emerged victorious.
It is complete self-delusion and utterly stupid to suggest that it is possible to have a non-racial approach to this problem. We delude ourselves, but we delude nobody outside the House. There is an overwhelming majority of black Africans within Northern Rhodesia. There is a tiny minority of Europeans. Whether one thinks that the black African can do as good a job as the European or not is completely immaterial. He will govern Northern Rhodesia and the rest of the territories within the Central African Federation come what may. This is quite inevitable.
It is a great pity that for such a long time the impression has been given, certainly to some extreme European sections, that there was a possibility that a British Parliament might be prepared to abrogate its responsibilities in Central Africa and allow certain sections of the European population to hold power by force for all time. I do not think that this is a possibility. It is about time that it was said quite clearly.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made a point relating to my hon. Friend the Member for

Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I certainly would not presume to speak on my hon. Friend's behalf or answer for him, but it is fair and reasonable that the point should be clarified as I saw it. As I understand it, what happened was that a number of European mine workers in the European Mine Workers' Union complained that on one occasion they had been to Westminster and had wanted to see my hon. Friend, but had been unable to see him.
The position with regard to my hon. Friend's standing within Northern Rhodesia and other parts of the Federation was that he had the overwhelming confidence of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia, who are not unimportant in terms of numbers, if for no other reason. He also had the confidence of a number of Europeans. His views were certainly very much opposed by a large number of Europeans, but that was inevitable. The position of the Secretary of State is rather different.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will my hon. Friend allow me to add to what he has said? I was present at Westminster on the occasion to which he refers. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) met the leaders of the European mine workers and apologised to them, explaining that he had to attend a meeting of the Shadow Cabinet. I, deputising for him, spent two hours with the leaders of the white mine workers.

Mr. Marsh: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, because I never heard what happened at this end. However, I was able to make my own assessment of the confidence the Secretary of State enjoyed in the Central African Federation. Everywhere we went the Secretary of State was denigrated by almost every European we met. For example, the attitude of members of the United Federal Party was certainly that of biting the hand which in their view was not feeding them. Indeed, there was a great deal of opposition to the Secretary of State.
I do not think that mattered, because I felt very strongly that, although the right hon. Gentleman was pursuing policies which were unpopular with influential people in that part of the world and were certainly unpopular with a large


section of his own supporters, they were policies in which he believed and which had, I thought, the overwhelming support of the majority of both sides of the House of Commons. Because of that the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed a great deal more support among the Africans in the Central African Federation than most other members of the party opposite.
However—I say this with much regret —the position now is that the right hon. Gentleman has the confidence of no one in the Central African Federation. There is a strong feeling that the views he expresses today are not the views which he held some months ago. No one will ever know if that is true. No one will ever be able to find out. There had been a very widespread view on the part of all people in Northern Rhodesia—whether it was expressed depended on who one was speaking to—that the right hon. Gentleman was converted, believed in the idea of a substantial increase in African representation in the legislative body, and was prepared to accept the principle of African self-government in Northern Rhodesia within the very near future.
All sorts of things have been said. That view was so strongly held that I heard many criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman from all sorts of people. It was suggested that he was, through other channels, deliberately informing sections of African opinion that he was "on their side" and had decided to support their proposals to some extent. I repeat the point I made at the beginning of my speech, that the worst possible thing for the territory is that there should continue to be a lack of stability and a lack of knowledge about what the future will be.
The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) made a very important point. It is essential that Her Majesty's Government make certain facts quite clear. They should make it quite clear that the responsibility for that part of the world rests with the House of Commons and cannot be dodged. Europeans in Northern Rhodesia obviously have strong feelings about this. Their homes are there. They live there. Their future is there. Despite that, and no matter what views are expressed outside the House of Commons, the Government should make it clear that at no stage will the African

people or anybody else in the Central African Federation lose the protection of the House of Commons. Many Africans within the Federation are not opposed to federation as such as on economic theory. They do not believe that Central Africa would be better off without federation. What they believe is that the present negotiations are a prelude to a manœuvre to remove from them the protection of the British Government.

Mr. Albert Roberts: My hon. Friend will surely agree that the Federation is not by any means a theory.

Mr. Marsh: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but I believe that for practical purposes the Federation is at present a theory. There cannot be a factual political federation in Central Africa unless the active co-operation of all sections is enjoyed. The active cooperation of 300,000 out of 8 million is not much use. I should like to see federation as a flourishing factual thing.

Mr. Roberts: It is at the moment.

Mr. Marsh: If my hon. Friend succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair, he will be able to make his point in a speech. I do not believe that it is sensible to talk in terms of a multi-racial federation and the ideals of partnership and at the same time have a discussion in the House of Commons as to who sends which troops to keep the peace. This is not partnership. I should like to see it. No one wants to see people fighting each other in a country in which both sides have to live, but it is fatal to go on pretending that some of the problems do not exist and to talk in terms of partnership, of equals, when the facts of the matter are that they are not equals.
The European within the Federation in recent years has made enormous strides. He has done enormous things in the field of education for the Africans. He has done a great deal in terms of African welfare, but he has done it too late. I am glad that he has done it, and I am not criticising him because he has done it too late. However bitter the reality, it is too late. The time has gone. It is a great pity, but it is a fact, none the less.
Firstly, I think we should make it quite clear that responsibility will always rest in this country and in this Parliament.


Secondly, I think we should make it quite clear that we believe that Northern Rhodesia will be governed by black Africans within a period of years in the foreseeable future. If we do not do this the only way in which we shall maintain peace in Northern Rhodesia is by sheer force of arms.

Sir Leslie Plummer: As in Cyprus.

Mr. Marsh: I do not want to get drawn into a party political issue on this matter. We have made mistakes elsewhere, and I think that we are in danger of making another series of them. If we do not make it quite clear that Africans will govern this part of the world, then what part we have in Africa we shall lose. If Mr. Kaunda is disowned by his own people I am in no doubt that his successor will be a much more difficult man to deal with than Mr. Kaunda. It is in our interest to maintain the confidence of these people.
It is said, of course, that one can only run a country with an educated electorate. I suppose that that is true, but the tragedy here was that many of the arguments being advanced were the same as those advanced in the middle forties over India. There are Members in this House who were elected on votes cast by electors of Great Britain who could not speak, read or write the English language.

Mr. Wall: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Indians had had centuries of civilisation, their own civilisation, and contact with the West, whereas in Central Africa they have had it for only seventy years? That is rather a different comparison.

Mr. Marsh: It is frequently said, indeed, of other parts of Africa that the government of affairs in those areas which are now in the hands of Africans followed a long foundation of British and Western rule and governmental direction, but that this does not exist in Central Africa. People may well argue about this, but I believe that there is a large body of responsible African opinion that does not want to throw away the European Civil Service, that does not want to break its contact with this country, but unless we show by our policy that we support these people they

will be forced to throw overboard the very thing that will enable them to have a fair and reasonable Government. We must make it quite clear, which it is not at the moment, that the rule of law in British possessions applies to all people regardless of the colour of their skins.
Reference was made to the European Mineworkers' Union. It is a pity that the rule of law is not in operation at the present time. I think that it has broken down in many parts of the Federation. That is not true in terms of Northern Rhodesia. But those of us who have met the European Mineworkers' Union heard speeches from its members and remarks sincerely put forward which I believe—and many others will agree with me—would have landed the African politicians in gaol. I heard and other hon. Members who were with me heard what members of the Mineworkers' Union said, that in some circumstances they would be prepared to fight. We were told that they had weapons and firearms.
I can understand this sort of thing. It always happens in a situation of this kind, but it is tragic. Neither side should say that sort of thing. One side can say it and get away with it, but the other cannot. We must bend over backwards to make it clear what our position is on this. What about the future? It is essential that there should be a majority of African representation in the Northern Rhodesia Legislature. Nothing other than that would be acceptable to anyone.
What appears to have happened is that Sir Roy Welensky came along and said, "We are not prepared to co-operate on this. The United Federal Party refuses to co-operate on the basis of this kind of settlement," and that therefore the Government produced some sort of elaborate fiddle to work their way out. Many of these people may not be able to read and write, but I think that we should make a great mistake if we underestimated their political interest. I have been in few countries where politics have played such a perpetual part in everyone's life.
These people want a situation which gives them either an African majority now or the obvious guarantee of an African majority in the very near future, with probable safeguards, with the right of veto possibly in the Governor's hands,


and all sorts of other things. This arrangement has not done that. It would be a great help if when winding up the debate the Government spokesman stated quite clearly what are Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the future of this territory without attempting to have all sorts of clever franchises that really take an awful lot of reading but add up to the fact that African self-Government is a long way away at the present time.
This is a beautiful country with enormous natural resources and one in which people can live together and have a great future. It is a country which can contribute a great deal to the peace of the world and to this country in particular. But it is a country which is ill served by the sort of spineless jelliness that we have had from Her Majesty's Government. The Government ought really to make it quite clear where they intend to go and, having done that, they ought to keep on that course even if the captain wants to interfere.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: Before I come to my main point, I, as another member of the Parliamentary delegation which visited Northern Rhodesia, wish to add one more thing to the dispute between my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) about what the European mine workers said. I think that my right hon. Friend will recollect that he saw them in two separate delegations and. therefore, I cannot confirm or deny what he said to them. But I remember that the Rhodesian railwaymen, whom he saw a few days previously, made the point that they, unfortunately, had not been able to see the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East when he was in the Federation.
There may have been a perfectly good reason for this. The hon. Gentleman may not have had the time. I know how tightly schedules are arranged when Members of Parliament visit countries like that. That was the complaint they made and that, possibly, is where the misunderstanding has arisen. The hon. Member may have since seen the representatives of that union, if they have been over here, or he may see them on another occasion.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Does the hon. Member think that he is doing any good by making that kind of remark about a delegation of 1957? Is he sure that there are not people in Central Africa who may be saying that he did not attempt to meet them during his recent visit?

Mr. Russell: I am not as important as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, but I thought that it was worth mentioning my recollection of what took place. I did not do so in any way to condemn the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I said that he may have had perfectly good reasons.
When the Lord Boyd of Merton negotiated the 1958 Constitution, he had one definite advantage over my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary in that he was able to obtain the agreements of the Governments concerned about the terms and bringing into operation of that constitution. I am only sorry that my right hon. Friend has not had a similar success with this Constitution.
One of the things which worries me most is the widespread criticism of my right hon. Friend among nearly all the Europeans whom we met, as the hon. Member f OT Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) also observed. It was most disturbing. It was a criticism which did not apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, nor to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, nor to my right hon. Friend himself in any other Colonial Territory of which I know. Nor does it apply to my right hon. Friend in other walks of life with which he has been concerned since he became one of Her Majesty's Ministers. I can only hope that in the days that lie ahead, whatever may happen to this constitution or to its terms or to the plans which my right hon. Friend has made, he will overcome that criticism and regain the confidence which he has unfortunately lost, because we all wish him well in all Colonial Territories.
The second depressing fact which I have found in the Federation was that all development seemed to have come to a complete standstill because of political uncertainty. I suppose that that is unavoidable until a decision is made about the Federation's future. But what the three territories need most is stability. In the two Protectorates there must be


an end of intimidation and I hope that it will be one of the first tasks of my right hon. Friend to make certain that intimidation is stopped, as far as that is humanly possible.
I hope that the time is not far distant when my right hon. Friend will be able to state with firmness that, as part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, the Federation is to continue. I believe that federation is the only successful future for these three territories. It has done much good in the past seven years and it is a tragedy that so much promising development should have come to a complete standstill. I hope that the time will soon come when we will be able to put an end to that uncertainly so as to allow the economic future of the Federation to continue as successfully as it has developed in the past.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does the hon. Member agree with the Monckton Commission that the Federation should continue only with the consent of the inhabitants?

Mr. Russell: No. With respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), I do not necessarily agree with that, because it is very difficult to take the opinions of all the African inhabitants, as the hon. Member knows. I hope that the hon. Member is not one of those who imagine that all the Africans speak with one voice. There must be an enormous number who do not understand the issue and still others who, because of intimidation, are frightened to give their views.
I support the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mal-ton to my right hon. Friend to reconsider the number of nationally elected members. I am concerned about this departure in degree—I cannot make up my mind whether it is a departure in principle—from the non-racial basis of the 1958 Constitution. I would like the number of nationally elected members to be increased so that that balance could be restored to some extent.
I hope that this Constitution will have some term of permanence. It is only two or two and a half years since the Lennox-Boyd Constitution was brought into being, and from its wording it

appeared that it was meant to last about ten years. It was a very good Constitution, but it now appears to have gone by the board and we have this new plan of my right hon. Friend. Let us hope that it will bring some stability and will last for some time, because I do not believe that it will be in the interests of Northern Rhodesia, Africans or Europeans, that there should be an African majority in that territory for some considerable time to come.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: It is with some hesitancy that I venture to take part in this debate, because I do not profess to be an expert on colonial matters. But I have visited Northern Rhodesia only recently and I have sensed the tension out there and suffered the cross-fire of both black and white during our discussions.
It is interesting to note that four of the six speakers in our debate today were members of that last delegation. It is pleasant to note that fresh voices are being heard in the Commons Chamber on colonial matters, for this subject has long been the monopoly of a minority—naturally so, because only a few of us have gone to the Colonies at the express invitation of bodies, which I do not run down—such as the chiefs, or organised parties, or sponsored by newspapers.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: New voices, new vision.

Mr. Mason: If the hon. Member wants to be critical about this delegation which went to Central Africa and of which I was a member, let me tell him that I have no regrets whatsoever. "Voice and Vision" acted as agents for the Federal Government, of which Sir Roy Welensky is the Prime Minister, so that we went at his invitation. The people who usually gibe and sneer at invitations of this kind are either those who have the wealth to travel the world on their own or people who accept invitations from small parts of the world which are usually very left of centre.

Sir G. Nicholson: I assure the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that I was only attempting a feeble joke. He spoke of new voices, and I was only expressing the hope that there would also be new vision.

Mr. Mason: It was a feeble joke.
I want to talk about Northern Rhodesia, because that and not the Federation is what the debate is about. I agree with the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) that the Federation has done good work, and it is up to the House of Commons to work more in unison to get the Federation going from this standstill which is due to political instability, for which the Colonial Secretary has been largely responsible.
On this issue, the Colonial Secretary has blundered terribly. First, he has let down the whites on the basis of the 1958 White Paper and the whites believe that his attitude is a departure from the original concept of a non-racial political approach in which the political parties would have been obliged to seek support from both races. He has introduced a constitution in which there are to be fifteen black, fifteen white and fifteen national representatives whose colour at the moment is unknown. That in itself is to emphasise racial discrimination and segregation and in itself is a departure from the principles laid down in the 1958 White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that one party might boycott the elections and said that naturally that party's opponents would then win the fifteen national seats, but he ought to know that there is already a problem in the Federation because many black African parties are advising their supporters to boycott many measures introduced by the Federal Government in Northern Rhodesia. It is common practice now, and it may happen again on this issue.
Apart from letting down the whites on the understanding of the 1958 White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman is now letting down the black Africans, too. He has referred to the speech he made in the Central Hall to the African students —growth of freedom for the African people—but he did not realise to what extent his words here being reported in Rhodesia. "Votes before stomachs" was the headline in Rhodesia.
He immediately excites the feelings of the blacks; when they come prepared to talk at the conference they are sufficiently excited to anticipate a majority in the Legislative Council. He lets them down, too. He also introduces greater segregation. He proposes repre-

sentation by fifteen blacks, fifteen whites and fifteen unknowns. He further complicates the franchise qualifications, and the Africans themselves have no idea of the composition of the fifteen unknowns.
He has blundered by delaying. His right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary was in Southern Rhodesia when we were touring the Federation. He did an extremely good job because, during those talks, he pleased the African groups by giving them a noticeable increase immediately in an enlarged Legislative Assembly. Only one party disagreed with what happened in Southern Rhodesia, and that was the Dominion Party.
Hon. Members should know how near the Dominion Party is to being elected in Southern Rhodesia, and what its policy is. It is the white Fascist Party of Central Africa, and if its members get in they intend to rule, because they believe in white supremacy. They will make Sir Roy Welenksy look like a Communist, so Left will he be compared with Harper, who leads the Dominion Party.
The Commonwealth Secretary did an extremely good job in getting unity—apart from this white Fascist group. The Africans were pleased at the time, and Mr. Nkomo, leader of the National Democratic Party, was satisfied with the arrangements. But when the Colonial Secretary blundered with his delay the African voices started to swell in the National Democratic Party in Southern Rhodesia. They said, "We are not satisfied with the agreement reached." They have challenged the results. The Colonial Secretary has that on his shoulders, too.
Why should he introduce such a complicated voting formula? Surely he accepts the fact that (a) all people are not ready for the vote in Northern Rhodesia, and (b) the one thing lacking is education. How will the Africans fully understand this complicated system of voting for blacks, whites and unknowns when even hon. Members are not conversant with and cannot understand this system? In any case, anyone who knows anything about African affairs knows that these high and lower rolls or (A) and (3) rolls are always suspect. The blacks suspect them of being weighted against themselves. Psychologically, separate rolls make the Africans feel inferior.
The Colonial Secretary should introduce a common roll. I am not satisfied that the African, particularly in Rhodesia, is ready for "one man, one vote." I do not believe in single voting, because that tends to imply that the majority of the electorate is illiterate; that there is a non-thinking population. The tendency then is to create the impression that the Westminster model cannot be transplanted anywhere in Africa and that one is left with the extremes of having either a "Congo" or a dictatorship as there is in Ghana.
The Colonial Secretary should be working hard on a middle course. He may think that he is doing that, but he has heightened tension in Northern Rhodesia by making both sides angry, not only at himself—that would be all right—but at each other. The blacks accuse the whites of seeking special favours and of secret dealing, while the whites are disgusted by proposals that are a departure from the principles of the 1958 White Paper.
The Commonwealth Secretary should inform the House tonight just what are the prospects of the Lusaka meeting taking place. He never gave any indication of that in his statement, nor did we get any indication at the outset of this debate. What are the chances of a further meeting at Lusaka or here in London? What sort of timetable has he in mind? In other words, how long is this period of tension to last? The House should be told first how long the white people are to be left on tenterhooks, and to what extent the black Africans are to be encouraged by this unknown quantity of the extra fifteen seats in Northern Rhodesia.
I agree with the comment that has already been made that, undoubtedly, the black African will rule not only Northern Rhodesia but the whole of Central Africa, but, if peace is to be maintained, the Colonial Secretary in this White Paper should have given the black Africans a clearly and easily seen advance. They do not want complications.
As a matter of psychology, the Africans want immediately to see that an advance has been made. That advance needs to be based on the 1958 principle, because the blacks accept it

and the whites respect it. This problem of non-racialism means to the whites that the blacks will advance on merit, but the blacks accept it because to them it means that there is to be no discrimination—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] People can say "Nonsense", but that is how I see it—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: A very good speech.

Mr. Mason: If the Colonial Secretary had wanted to make a proposal that would give a greater guarantee of peace in Northern Rhodesia than does this proposal, the advance for the Africans should have been made easily seen by gradually introducing a common roll for blacks and whites, lowering the qualifications and guaranteeing the blacks representation in the Legislative Assembly. As it is, this complicated formula leads the black Africans to believe that there is a swindle.
If that proposal were made, the black Africans would realise that now they were at parity, power was in the offing, and that if power was in the offing they had a job to do. That would have done more to soften nationalistic feelings than anything else. Instead, the Colonial Secretary—with this White Paper, with the blundering that has taken place in the conduct of the talks and with the delay that has spoilt the relations that existed between the Commonwealth Secretary and the Southern Rhodesian people—has enraged the whites and misled the blacks. On his shoulders alone must rest the ultimate consequences.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Aitken: I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) will forgive me if I do not follow very closely some of the very interesting points he made. I hope, too, that he will intervene very often in Colonial and Commonwealth debates. As one of th6se who signed a certain well-drafted Motion, I must confess that I was exceedingly relieved when I read the White Paper, because it seemed to me that 'the undertaking it contains was that although there could possibly be an African majority there will, at the same time, be maintained the principle of the non-racial approach by which the political parties are obliged to seek support from both races.
The question now is: where do we go from here? I do not think that any of us who know these countries, and have taken some interest in these matters, can fail to realise that the troubles and difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has been facing in the last few weeks are comparable to a women's institute picnic with what is to follow.
It seems to me that this major task of delineating the constituencies and assigning exact qualifications for the franchise where not yet defined may well produce an African majority for the Northern Rhodesian Legislature. I confess that I should not be unduly alarmed at that because, as the Guardian said today it is quite evident that we have come to a watershed. If the African people do not realise that the waters of political progress are bound to broaden from now on for the Africans in both Northern and Southern Rhodesia, they are very unrealistic indeed.
I think that everyone more or less accepts that the Africans must have greater participation in the government of these countries. It is accepted in Southern Rhodesia all right, and I think that everyone accepts it in Northern Rhodesia; but, as the Monckton Report points out, and as hon. Members have reminded us, there must, by the very nature of Africa and Africans, be a qualitative franchise for a long time to come. For this reason, it is natural enough for those who see the opportunities for political opportunity which could exist in a "one man, one vote" Westminster system to object very strenuously to the limitations of the franchise. The acceptance or rejection of this limitation of the franchise is the key to the whole future of Central Africa.
We must be prepared to accept, first, that for years to come there must be a restricted franchise. Secondly, we must accept that not only will we have a multiracial or non-racial legislative system, but we must do everything we can, Southern Rhodesians, Northern Rhodesians, and the British Government, to remove the miserable little pinpricks which do so much harm, the little racial irritants which probably do far more damage than any major constitutional revisions, changes, actions or reactions.

I hope that this, once we get over the conference, will be accepted by all.
I believe that the Europeans could learn a very effective lesson as to their future rôle from what has happened in two Commonwealth countries, South Africa and Canada. I admit that the situation is not comparable, but it is to some extent parallel. In South Africa, the British minority has been singularly ineffective as a political force simply because the British in that country have taken no part in politics. They have never thrown themselves into the affairs of the country and the political dynamism of South Africa has come from the Afrikaners.
In Canada, the opposite has occurred. The minority there, the French Canadians, from the very beginning of federation saw to it, with their very considerable voting power—probably about one-third of the nation—that no Government could gain power in Canada —except the present one—without some French-Canadian support. That was the position which existed in Canada from the early days of federation, and no Government could have carried on if the minority of French Canadians ever walked out. There is surely an object lesson here for European minorities in Central Africa.
Race relations in Central Africa, in both Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia, have only recently been really bad. I ask myself how that came about. Undoubtedly, partly through political activities of, as Sir Roy Welensky calls it, vicious African nationalism. I believe that it also was in part the failure of the Federal Government to set about doing a lot of little things to make the principle of partnership more of a reality. Why was it that one of the first Acts of Parliament which the Federal Government introduced was an Act restricting the import of second-hand clothing from the Congo? They probably did it on grounds of hygiene, but the net effect of that apparently harmless little piece of legislation was to convince the people of Northern and Southern Rhodesia that the Federation was a failure because the first act of the Government was a move to prevent them becoming like Europeans.
Why was it another early legislative act of the Federal Government to put a duty on maize? Very logical and very useful from the economic point of view,


no doubt it was, in order to stimulate home production, but, politically, it gave the Africans the impression that one of the first desires of the Federal Government was to increase the cost of their food.
Her Majesty's Government have two very difficult things to do. They have to persuade the Africans to accept this new Constitution for Northern Rhodesia. They have to persuade them that even if does not give them a majority in the Legislature, even if it does not give them the number of Ministers they would like in the Executive, the course is set. The opportunity for an ever-broadening African representation is confirmed, it is there, and it is bound to grow as time goes on, and the time can be greatly telescoped if the Africans choose to take advantage of their educational opportunities and do their best to attain qualifications for the franchise.
For the Europeans, the task is much more difficult. The British Government must face the fact that the majority of the people in Southern Rhodesia and in Northern Rhodesia are not fools and the reactionaries they have been made out to be. They are dominated by a fantastic political situation where a small party of the extreme Right very nearly holds a balance of power and the party in office has to keep its eye cocked on that Dominion Party. How my right hon. Friends the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will get over that, I do not know.
If the Africans do not accept the Constitution, and the Federation breaks down, we shall have to send a lot of troops out there to keep order. I would much rather see a couple of divisions of school teachers, technicians and agricultural experts, etc., being sent out to teach the Africans and stimulate their progress towards self-government. That is the kind of division which ought to go to keep law and order, not the military kind, and it would be a great deal cheaper, too.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is not unduly discouraged by the criticisms, because, as he himself said not long ago, if a man is being shot at by both sides he is probably about right. To change the metaphor, when a man is shooting

rapids in a canoe the only safe way is to stay between waves of the turbulent white water and to follow the tongue of the water, as it is called.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I make one comment about what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) said about Canada. The most important single fact in the political history of Canada is that the younger Pitt induced this House of Commons, in 1791, to enfranchise the French Canadians on a fully equal footing with the British there. This was repeated in the new Constitution which was passed by the House in 1847.
I wish to speak of the immediate and the long-term dangers of the present crisis. The Colonial Secretary said that the present moment was one of great tension and great gravity in Africa. President de Gaulle and M. Bourguiba are about to meet. Peace in Algeria hangs in the balance. M. Tsombe is hurling defiance at the Security Council. The Belgian delegate is making reservations in the Security Council—reservations which I do not understand, but which, in the light of the events of recent months, have a sinister ring—about the Council's resolutions. Peace in the Congo hangs in the balance.
The situation in one country inevitably affects the situation in other countries. I do not desire to rake over the burning embers of the past, but what happened in Cyprus, as anybody in touch with France well knows, had a tragic effect on what has happened in Algeria. If the Europeans in the Rhodesias are involved in bloodshed, it may have a still more disastrous effect in the Congo and in Algeria today.
There are all too serious grounds for fearing that the Europeans in the Rhodesias may soon be involved in violence. Sir Roy Welensky and his colleagues have shown by deeds in Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia in recent months that they are not afraid of using violence. They have defied the British Government and, if I understand Sir Roy's speech aright, have declared that they will impose their own policy by their own armed force. That means that the basic issue in this debate is: what is the policy of Sir Roy Welensky and his


colleagues? It is, and has been for many years, the creation of a fully self-governing dominion in which power is retained in the hands of the European minority.
I say that it is and has been for many years their policy, but I go back only twelve years. In 1949, when I was at the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Southern Rhodesian Government sent a delegation of Ministers to ask us to grant them federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), who was then at the Colonial Office, and I had discussions with them. It became quite plain that what they wanted was Dominion status at once, with full power in the hands of the European minority of 160,000, as it then was, amid a population of 6½ million Africans.
When our conversations were ended, I told the delegates that we were prepared to discuss the matter further with them, which we did in the succeeding year, but I pointed out that, as then advised, we thought that the difficulties inherent in federation were very great. I pointed out
the obligations of the United Kingdom Government to the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the differing constitutional status of the three territories, and the present objection of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to political integration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December. 1949; Vol 470, c. 2885.]
As I have said, it became quite plain in the course of our conversations that what the Ministers wanted was federal union with full Dominion status. The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has shown that that is still what Sir Roy Welensky and his colleagues want today. That policy can be imposed only by force of arms.
I conclude by quoting the words of two wise men for whom I had the privilege of working long ago.
Lord Lugard was one of the greatest of our colonial administrators and one of the creators of the Mandate system of the League of Nations. He warned us that we must never put native masses
at the mercy of an immigrant minority".
I last saw General Smuts, for whom I worked at the Peace Conference in Paris in 1919, when he came here very shortly before his death, and after he had been beaten by the Nationalist Party in the general elections in the Union. The last

words which he said to me were these: "If the Nationalists go on as they have begun in the Union, it will end in bloodshed, and if there is bloodshed it will not be the blacks who will leave Africa". I hope that his words will be remembered in London, Lusaka and Salisbury today.

6.5 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) said that the basic issue in this debate is the policy of Sir Roy Welensky and his Government. I venture to differ from him. The basic issue is, or should be: what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government and what is the policy of this House? Viewed from that standpoint, I cannot help feeling that this has been a very disappointing debate. I came to the House feeling wretched and unhappy that an ill omen was hanging over this country and the Rhodesias. So far, I have heard nothing to lighten that feeling.
I wonder whether I am being too pessimistic by putting this to the House. We face two terrible possibilities—pray God they are not probabilities—in the Rhodesias. One is a sort of Boston tea party, an open quarrel with our own kith and kin, ordinary decent people, taking a view which each of us probably would take if we lived there—do not let us forget that—but with incalculably evil effects on the developments of the Commonwealth as a whole, and on our relations with Africans and Europeans in the rest of Africa.
Another possibility, not mutually exclusive to the former, is something on the lines of a Rhodesian Sharpeville. We talk about possible breakdowns in law and order in the Rhodesias as if it meant a few cracked heads, a quarrel in Eaton Square outside the Belgian Embassy, or something like that. If there were large-scale rioting in Harare or in the Copper-belt, hundreds of lives might be lost. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hypothetical."] The hon. Gentleman says that it is hypothetical. Of course it is. All danger is hypothetical.
I am left with the same sort of feeling which I had in debates in this House in 1938 and 1939—different in dimension but the same in nature. I do not believe that the House has faced up to the great challenge being presented to us. This


has not been a realistic debate from that point of view.
I do not think that it has been a realistic debate from another point of view. Hon. Members have ridden their own hobby horses. They have given samples and extracts from their own experiences and views. Most of them were fully entitled to do so, and they were wise and interesting remarks. But they have not faced this question: what are we to do if we reject the policy of the Government and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies? It may well be of course, that every possible policy is doomed to disaster, disappointment and failure. What the Government are doing, in particular my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is carrying out a very delicate tightrope performance. I think that we all agree with that. To change the metaphor, my right hon. Friend is wending his way between reefs and rocks and dangerous currents almost without precedent in history.
While my right hon. Friend is doing this tightrope performance, is there any point in pulling at his coat-tails and jerking the rope? What would happen if the House turned against the Colonial Secretary and the Government? Would not we land ourselves with the worst of all possible worlds? I say with great humility, and not intending to lecture the House, that the prime duty of the House is to secure unity within this House and country, clarity in the face of Africa and the world, and determination to press through without hesitation what we believe is the best policy.
The odd thing is that there is not a great difference of view in the House. I can speak only for my own party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should say that I can speak only of my own party. In so doing, I say that, in my judgment, 95 per cent. of my party are wholeheartedly behind the Government's policy. The minority is represented by my hon. Friends who feel very strongly, deeply and sincerly—I do not doubt that —that the policy of the Government is leading inevitably to disaster and, therefore, that it should be reversed.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I correct my hon. Friend's arithmetic? There are 365, or thereabouts, Tories and there are 97 names to the Motion on the Order

Paper. That is a majority of three to one, not 95 per cent.

Sir G. Nicholson: I appeal to my noble Friend and his colleagues to have the courage to go into the Division Lobby against the Government if they feel strongly enough. They will find that they have not 97 supporters. They will not have 47; they will not have 27. They may have 17. I know the way in which some of these names were secured. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend knows quite well what I mean by that.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What does that remark mean? My hon. Friend said that I would know; but I do not know.

Sir G. Nicholson: rose—

Mr. Julian Snow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) addressed what appeared to be a confidential remark to his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson). Is not the House entitled to know what it was, since the hon. Member for Farnham gave way?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): If an hon. Member wishes to speak, he should address the Chair.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Do you wish me to repeat my remarks?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is purely up to the hon. Member whether he wishes to repeat his remarks or not.

Sir G. Nicholson: I am not imputing any insincerity to people. When people feel very deeply about a subject they often unintentionally mislead those whom they are asking to help them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mislead?"] I am sorry if I have led the House on to the wrong tracks. I suggest that this is one of the most serious and gravest moments in our country's history and that we should unite and not allow a debate of this sort to develop. We do not want to score party, personal or political points. If we fail, history will judge us as having betrayed the cause of this country, the cause of the Commonwealth and the cause of Africa.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It was my understanding, though I may have misunderstood, that the hon. Member for Farnham said that he knew how certain support for the opposition viewpoint among hon. Members on the Government benches had been obtained. Is not the House entitled to know precisely what he means by that remark?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) does not have to explain any remark. He can say what he likes.

Sir G. Nicholson: I cannot see that that is a point of order—

Mr. Maurice Edelman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to impute base motives to his fellow Members?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman imputed base motives.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: He did.

Sir G. Nicholson: I am not imputing base motives. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) started by saying that he had 97 hon. Members with him. I contradicted him. Many of those concerned put their names to the Motion under a false impression.

Hon. Members: False?

Viscount Lambton: Then will my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) explain why they have not removed their names from the Order Paper?

Sir G. Nicholson: This will be judged when there is a Division if my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South and his colleagues have the courage to come out in their true colours.
I leave it there, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I promised to sit down at a quarter past six, and I shall do so. I appeal to the House to remember what is at stake, not only for us but for other people.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: The future of Rhodesia is on the brink of disaster. One thing that has been

revealed in this debate today is that the future of Rhodesia has become a matter of party brawling within the Conservative Party. This is a most regrettable state of affairs. It is undermining the security and the future of the people in Central Africa, including the European minorities.
Today the European minorities in Central Africa, in Northern Rhodesia in particular, are looking to this country to give them leadership and guidance. They are looking to Her Majesty's Ministers to give the guidance which they cannot now obtain from Sir Roy Welensky. I beg the Secretaries of State responsible to give a clear assurance to the European minorities in Central Africa as to the future policy to be pursued by them. They are not going to be able to give the guarantees which the European minorities in Central Africa need if they continue with the equivocations which we have encountered so far in the speech by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and in the White Paper which has been distributed.
I believe that the future of the white minorities in Central Africa will be better secured if the Government come out quite clearly now on the basis of advance towards genuine democracy for Northern Rhodesia and not on the basis of equivocation which, quite frankly, borders on hypocrisy. We are told that the approach is being made towards a non-racial solution. I ask hon. Members very carefully to read the two remarkable editorials which appeared in The Times yesterday and today. The fact is that, although some people talk in terms of partnership and non-racial democracy, what Sir Roy Welensky and the United Federal Party want is white domination—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and the basis of the 1958 Constitution for Northern Rhodesia was, in fact, white domination in Northern Rhodesia. That was why my hon. Friends and I divided against that Constitution and why the Labour Opposition attacked the Constitution as being a fake and a fraud.
I should like to congratulate the Colonial Secretary on the measures which he is bringing before the House if he is sincere in his intention to allow a greater number of people in Northern Rhodesia to participate in the election


of the Legislative Council. What I should like to make clear is (this. I am mot concerned about the number of Africans in the Legislative Council if those Africans are not to be elected by the majority of the population. I do not wish Africans to sit in the Legislative Council with European votes. That would be an utter fraud. That is why I was one of those who were very strongly opposing the 1958 proposals, because, in fact, most of the Africans sitting in the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia today are elected almost wholly with European votes, and that is not the sort of Constitution which will succeed in Northern Rhodesia. The basis of a successful Constitution must be a wide franchise with a majority of the population participating in the use of a vote.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) referred to the example of Canada and spoke of the French Canadians being one-third of the population there. Did he realise that the European minority in Northern Rhodesia which hitherto has had most of the political power constitutes only 3 per cent. of the population? It is absolute lunacy to be handing over more political power to that European minority even though we may use the words "non-racial democracy", "partnership", and so on, which, of course, the Africans regard as absolute hypocrisy.
This is not only lunacy for the Africans; it is also undermining the security of the Europeans themselves. I am interested in the future of the Africans in Central Africa just as much as I am interested in the future of the Africans living in that part of the continent, and I know that there are many European settlers who are today supporting the proposals of the National Democratic Party in Southern Rhodesia as they support the proposals of the United National Independence Party in Northern Rhodesia, because they recognise that their future can be secured only on the basis of equality and real friendship with the African majority.
If hon. Members opposite want to see an example of successful non-racial equality in operation, I invite them to go to Tanganyika on one of their visits

to the Central African Federation. In Tanganyika proposals have been put into operation with the maximum possible accord between all races living in that country. There has not been a build-up of franchise qualifications to exclude most of the African population. The vote was given in the first election to people in Tanganyika who have incomes of £150 a year or more, with the result that, although the majority in the first Legislative Council elected in Tanganyika was two-thirds non-African, because the franchise qualifications were low, the people elected to the Legislative Council had the confidence of the overwhelming mass of the population. That is, I think, the solution which we want in Northern Rhodesia, not a balancing between the racial composition of the Legislative Council but a realistic approach to the franchise qualification.
I therefore propose that the Colonial Secretary should look again at his proposals, and come back with a common roll, with a franchise qualification of about £150 a year income, and abolish the higher roll which, I think, in the circumstances in Northern Rhodesia today is a foolish proposal.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) said he was very disappointed by this debate. I do not share his disappointment. I think that this debate has been very well worth while, and I am not thinking especially of the interesting disclosure of the different points of view of hon. Members opposite, though I am sure they will forgive us that quiet piece of enjoyment when we see them arguing with each other on these matters.

Sir G. Nicholson: We have more opportunities of doing it than the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps if I may use the word "parity" in this connection it would be appropriate.
However, I do not think anybody who knew anything about the subject or the circumstances would possibly claim that the task confronting the Colonial Secretary in trying to achieve an agreement on constitutional advance in Northern Rhodesia was an easy one. It is quite


clear that he was faced with extremely different points of view, and I think it is quite foolish to speak as if there was some easy and simple solution for everybody to have accepted and agreed to.
I also think that he was right, to begin with at any rate, to seek to reach agreement, always, of course, on the assumption that the kind of proposals which might have secured agreement were also acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, but having said that, I want to make plain something else. If, in fact, it proves impossible to reach agreement, as it so far has, Her Majesty's Government have an absolutely clear responsibility for deciding what should be done about this franchise and for carrying it through.
I welcome what the Colonial Secretary said, in particular about the fact that the Federal Government have a right to be consulted on the extension of the franchise in Northern Rhodesia, but nothing more. They have no right at all to determine or, beyond consultation, to influence the situation. I was glad, too, that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) spoke in such weighty terms on the same theme. There have been suspicions, rather strong suspicions, in many quarters, British as well as African, that in these last few weeks the kind of pressures being put upon the British Government by the Federal Government have far exceeded what we normally understand by the word "consultations".
It is significant that nobody in the whole of this debate, not even some of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Government side, have said that they supported the point of view of the United Federal Party. Nobody has said that there should be no extension of the franchise whatever. Nobody has underlined or indicated agreement with the phrase in the White Paper which describes the point of view of that party. We are all agreed that there must be an extension, and I do not think that any of us doubt that it must come very soon if there is to be any hope whatever—if, indeed, hope still remains—of saving the Federation and if there is to be much hope of preventing very serious disorder in Northern Rhodesia.
How far, then, should we go? The Colonial Secretary quoted something that I said in 1959, and it is quite true that both on that occasion and in major

debates on Central Africa earlier in the year I expressed the view that the very minimum that ought to be conceded was an African majority for Nyasaland in the Legislature and at least parity in Northern Rhodesia. I must say quite frankly that the wind of change is blowing very fast nowadays in Africa. And I do not believe, if I were asked today if that were all that was necessary, that I could say it was. I think that if it had been done at once in 1959, it might have been just possible to get away with it, but I do not think it is possible any longer. I do not think it will be acceptable to the Africans, for two reasons. First, the Monckton Commission Report, as my hon. Friend pointed out, has had a very big influence, as it was intended to have, on this situation. That was the whole idea of appointing the Monckton Commission—that it would influence opinion in Africa. Though it might not have had quite the influence which was intended, there has certainly been that effect.
There have been other developments —the constitutional changes in Kenya and in Tanganyika, the emergence to full independence of other African countries. We cannot ignore all these, but we say to the Colonial Secretary that we for our part have been with him all the way in these progressive changes for which he has been largely responsible in the other African Colonies. We have noticed since he became Colonial Secretary a very distinot improvement in these matters. It is our desire that he should continue on the same lines as before, because we believe that is best for Africa, and, indeed, the only way to avoid very serious trouble.
An awful lot of nonsense is spoken about whether or not a franchise is racial. We may say, I suppose, that it is a nonracial franchise if there is a common roll, but if the common roll is based on a very limited franchise which, in fact, allows only Europeans to vote, then it is a racial franchise. Equally, let me say at once, the Colonial Secretary would be entitled to say that if the franchise were universal and if there were an overwhelming African majority in the population, it could be described as racial. There would, of course, be a difference, because the second arrangement would be in accordance with our


democratic traditions and the first would not, but we could certainly say that both were racial. Therefore, I think it is rather foolish to speak about racial franchises or constitutions without discussing exactly what we mean in detail.
If I may now say a few thing about the specific proposals, there is one thing which I do not myself oppose. I think there may be something to be said, when we are to have this third national roll or national sector, as it were, for requiring a certain minimum percentage of both communities to vote for a successful candidate. I would not rule that out now if we really wish to get some kind of cross-voting. I agree that there is a lot in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) when he said that it was a complete mockery of the situation to have Africans solely dependent on Europeans for votes. That would obviously be ridiculous, but to say, for instance, that whoever is returned on this particular roll had to have a minimum of 10 or 5 per cent, or whatever it may be, with Europeans dependent on Africans or Africans on Europeans to that extent, is not a thing that we should entirely reject.
Having said that I must add this. I think there are three great difficulties about this proposal. Firstly, it is appallingly complex. Precisely because it is complex it is going to be misrepresented whatever Ministers may feel about it, and if it is misrepresented in present circumstances that could be very dangerous.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, this process of averaging out the votes is really something which surely must stick in the throat of anybody who believes in democracy. How can we seriously justify a man who has a very substantially larger vote than another suddenly finding himself below a man who has got much less? I think that the Colonial Secretary will have to think again about that idea.
Here is another objection. Although it is claimed that this idea of a national role is meant to get away from a racial basis I cannot see how we shall avoid voters voting very largely according to colour because it will be in their interests to give those of their own colour the maximum vote. The only way to avoid

that is really to have reserved places. If we have reserved places as in Tanganyika, for instance, and as in Kenya, then we shall have Europeans dependent upon African votes. It is true that we then provide for a certain limited number of seats—for a minority of Europeans in this case. I can imagine that the Colonial Secretary may not like it, but we do get, what seems to me far more important, the idea that people vote for persons of different colour. I would ask that the Tanganyika experiment, which I should have thought by far the most successful case of multi-racial voting, ought to be considered for Northern Rhodesia in spite of the fact that the proportion of Europeans there is higher than it is in Tanganyika.
That is all I want to say about the substance of the proposals, and on that, as my hon. Friend said, although we are critical we do not want to say much more because these negotiations will still be going on. But I must confess that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in criticising the way in which these negotiations have been handled. It is undeniable—we all know—that we are in the position where the Government's proposals have been rejected by both sides—one might say all sides, except the Liberal Party which happens peculiarly to benefit from them. This is really a deplorable situation, to have lost the support both of the Africans and of the Whites. There seems to me little doubt that we have the worst of all worlds.
Why has the Colonial Secretary lost the support of the Africans? He may say, "It is because I would not agree to their own desire for, if one likes, one man one vote", or, if it is absolutely explicit, "a clear African majority". Of course, I do not doubt that the latter point at least played some part in their attitude. Yet in previous cases the Colonial Secretary has been very successful. On every occasion when he has been handling problems of this sort he has been able to retain the confidence of the Africans, as he did over the Kenya negotiations. I think there is something else, and I think that the something else which has really produced this deplorable result has been the intervention of the Federal Government and the way in which they were handled by the British Government.
After all, here we have a situation in which a conference has been called for the discussion of constitutional advances in Northern Rhodesia. It meets before Christmas. It does not, admittedly, make very much progress, but that is often the case at the beginning of such conferences. It then adjourns. It then comes back, and on the very first day of its resumption it is announced that the United Federal Party and the Dominion Party are both boycotting the conference. I could not help thinking at that time how very different the reception of the British Government of this action of the United Federal Party was from their reaction to the occasion when the African delegates in December walked out of the Federal Conference. It is a very different story. Then they were told in no uncertain terms that they were misbehaving. It was announced indeed the very next day, if I remember rightly, that the Constitutional Conference on Northern Rhodesia would be suspended. This was to teach them a lesson.
Indeed, Sir Edgar Whitehead said that the postponement of the territorial talks was designed to teach
 extreme racialistic African leaders a salutary lesson which was long overdue.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations said rather more calmly, but still in a fairly offensive manner, that
those African leaders who have remained may well achieve more by calm discussion round the conference table than those who have walked out will achieve by striking attitudes in front of the television cameras."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December. 1960; Vol. 632, c. 216.]
That was not the way Mr. Greenfield was spoken to. That was not the way Sir Roy Welensky was spoken to. This kind of unequal treatment between the two races and the different parties is, I am sure, one of the reasons for the loss of confidence by the Africans in the Colonial Secretary and the Government.
The third reason why I think there has been a collapse is really this, that the whole handling of our relations with the Federal Government, and with Sir Roy Welensky in particular, over a long period has, in my view, been quite wrong. This goes back, I must say at once, long before the present Minister was Colonial Secretary. We can only explain this really in terms of the whole of the last

seven or eight years, the long story of the introduction of federation and the repeated actions of the Tory Government at that time, always on the side of the Federal Government and against the Africans. I need not repeat all this. It is all set out in the Monckton Report, and if there is one thing we should have learned by now it is that particular lesson.
But more than that, while they gave way I think far too frequently over the years to Sir Roy Welensky and his colleagues they also managed from time to time to be too clever. This, I think, particularly applies to the Prime Minister. I hold no brief for Sir Roy Welensky, and I am going to say some things about him in a moment, but I must say that I have a lot of sympathy with him in the way he was treated on the question of the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission. It is undeniable that he was deceived on this matter. He has himself said repeatedly that he had the assurance from the Prime Minister that the question of secession would not be covered by the Report. I do not doubt that he believed that absolutely sincerely.
The trouble is that the Prime Minister was trying to be too clever, trying to say one thing to one lot of people and another thing to another lot of people. One gets caught out in the end if one does that too frequently.
Incidentally, let me say on behalf of my hon. Friend who was attacked because he referred to the Prime Minister's reputation in Africa that this phrase which he used was not something which he invented himself. This is something which appeared in the East African Review. I am going to read it:
In recent letters from friends in the Federation the expression 'do a Macmillan on us' has appeared several times. Now I see that it has been used in the Federal Assembly by Mr. C. W. Dupont, M.P. for Fort Victoria. In explanation he said that he meant: 'We never meant what we said; and if we did, we did not say it; and if we did, we were misreported.'
That was not my hon. Friend. Witty and entertaining as he is, he did not think of this. It was a Member of Parliament in Rhodesia who was unquestionably reflecting the feelings there, and that attitude of first of all giving way and then trying to be clever has landed us in an even worse position with Sir Roy Welensky and his colleagues than


we should have been in if we had been honest and straightforward with them from the start.
At the same time, having said that, I am bound to add that I consider that the speeches of Sir Roy Welensky in the last few days have been deplorable. I cannot see what good these rash and intemperate statements can do in present circumstances. Neither did I like—and I do not think that any of us did—the call-up of Federal territorials without first consulting the Government. We know perfectly well that it was done first and that the Governor was then asked, "Will you agree?"
Not only was this the kind of action which if there were proper relations between the British Government and the Federal Government could not conceivably happen without full consultation with Her Majesty's Ministers but, as the Colonial Secretary knows very well, the use of Federal troops in these circumstances is very liable to aggravate the position precisely because they are the troops of the Federal Government. I agree with what an hon. Member opposite said—that if, as I sincerely trust will not be the case, there are disorders which require any kind of military action against anybody, it would be far more satisfactory for British troops to be used than it would be for troops under the control of the Federal Government.
If there is to be restraint, and I think that this debate has been conducted on the whole with remarkable restraint, there must be restraint all round. There must be restraint in Rhodesia so far as Sir Roy Welensky is concerned and also on the part of some hon. Members opposite are concerned. I do not wish to interfere with their arguments and quarrels—[Laughter.]—I have never invited hon. Members opposite to interfere in ours. I do not propose to interfere with theirs, but I will say all the same that it is immensely important that in present circumstances the attacks which the Colonial Secretary has had to face from the right wing of his party should not lead Sir Roy Welensky and his friends to imagine that there is not a fundamental agreement on our side—and I put that at its most modest—for a very substantial advance in the franchise in Northern Rhodesia. The trouble with

these things is that they give a false impression which can be dangerous overseas.
Let us not forget that our object here is to try ultimately to bring about full democracy in Northern Rhodesia. We know that that will take a little time. We know that it must involve an acceptance by the white minority themselves of an African State which will be under the control of the African people. We believe that the white minority have an important part to play there, but they must accept the fact that we must get over this hump or past this watershed—whatever the metaphor may be—and that with the pace of events moving as it is in Africa, the time has long since gone when white supremacy can possibly be a viable policy.
The danger which must be borne in mind all the time is the undermining of the position of the present African leaders. We are fortunate in having in Northern Rhodesia, and for that matter in Southern Rhodesia, men of moderate opinion. Let us help them to carry their people with them.
Finally, let us not forget that what happens in Rhodesia will have wide repercussions elsewhere. This is not a matter that can be confined to a few hundred or a few thousand square miles of African territory. It will have the greatest possible bearing on the cold war. Let the Government stand firm on the principles of the Monckton Report. Let them not be browbeaten either by noble Lords below the Gangway or by Sir Roy Welensky and his friends.

6.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has not given me quite as much time as I expected and, therefore, I shall not be able to deal with all the points to which I should have liked to reply.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman very much that this has been a most valuable debate. I think that every hon. Member will agree that it has shown a very wide measure of support for the proposals for Northern Rhodesia of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary and the Government. I hope that that is the message which will go out clearly from here to all the peoples of Rhodesia.
We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in view of the disagreement between the races, the decision and the responsibility for what is to be done now rests fairly and squarely upon Her Majesty's Government; and I assure him that we will give careful consideration to the suggestions that he made about the franchise.
All parties of both races proclaim that what they want is a truly non-racial political system in which people of all races can play their part and make their contribution. I agree with a certain amount of what the right hon. Gentleman said about a non-racial approach to politics. Everybody has a different idea of what he means by non-racial. At any rate, we have taken them all at their word and we have put forward a plan which is specially designed to encourage moderate parties which have a multiracial appeal.
None the less, our plan has been rejected—perhaps for the reasons outlined by the right hon. Gentleman—by almost all parties, and by both races. By one side we are labelled as jelly-boned cowards for kow-towing to the African extremists, and, by the other side, we are accused of betraying the Africans and selling them down the river.
The Leader of the Opposition deplores the fact that our plan has been rejected by both races. I am not sure that he is right about that. The fact that it has been rejected by both races does not necessarily mean that it is a bad plan. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that if one of the two communities had given this plan an unqualified blessing that might well have been the kiss of death.
It is interesting to see the reasons that are being given by both sides. On the African side, Mr. Nkumbula explained to the Daily Herald why he rejected the plan. He said, very frankly:
We cannot possibly hope to get a majority out of this White Paper.
On the other side, Sir Roy Welensky made it perfectly clear that he opposes the plan because it does not provide a built-in majority of European electors on the upper roll. We may be old-fashioned, but we believe that in a parliamentary election it is appropriate that there should be some element of uncertainty. Sir Roy

claims that his party has a multi-racial appeal. If it has, this plan will give him the opportunity to prove it. It is a heaven-sent gift for any party which can command the support of moderate opinion among both races.
On their side, the Africans constantly assert that they do not believe in racialism. They say that they do not want to frighten away the Europeans and that they recognise that they need their co-operation. This plan offers to the African parties an encouragement to develop policies that will give confidence to the European community.
If each of the main political parties persists in thinking in purely racial terms, it is certain that neither of them will win a majority. In that case, they must not be surprised if the balance of political power in the Legislature passes into the hands of some middle-of-the-way group —what I might describe as a group of Jo Grimonds. We might not welcome an arrangement of that kind here, but in a country which is passing through a critical transition a political system which necessitates a measure of compromise between the parties is not necessarily a bad thing.
I was asked about law and order. The responsibility for internal law and order rests with the Government of each of the three territories; and so long as those territories remain dependencies of the United Kingdom we cannot divest ourselves of the ultimate responsibility for them. Under the Federal Constitution, however, the responsibility for defence as distinct from law and order rests with the Federal Government and they consequently control all the armed forces of the Federation.
Should there be civil disturbances of any kind, it is the police force of the territory concerned which has to deal with it in the first place. If it is beyond the power of the police to do so, it is open to the Government of the territory to call upon the armed forces of the Federation to come to the aid of the civil Power. I emphasise, however, that when performing police duties of this kind, the troops, whatever they may be, whether they come from the Federation or from Britain, will operate wholly under the directions of the civil Government of the territory concerned.
We have heard a lot in the last few weeks about the need to keep government in responsible hands. The threatening speeches by the African leaders, in which they have hinted at something worse than Mau Mau, were quite unpardonable and are evidence of political irresponsibility. The faults, however, have not been all on one side. Sir Roy Welensky rightly fears that the Federation would be endangered by an over-quick political advance for the Africans. That is quite true. But the same applies also to over-slowness.
I have a good deal of admiration for the sturdy, fighting qualities of Sir Roy Welensky. He is undoubtedly the dominant European figure in Rhodesia. He is the one man who could, if he wished, provide national leadership, but I have been very disappointed by some of the things which he has been saying in the last few days.
I do not in the least mind his truculent remarks about the British Government—we can take it. What has disturbed me is the general tone in which he has spoken of the racial problem. Some of the things he has said, and the way he has said them, are bound to deepen distrust between Africans and Europeans and to raise the political temperature at a time when it must, surely, be the duty of all responsible men to try to create calm and confidence.
There is no good concealing the fact that Europeans have, in the years gone by, missed many opportunities to encourage a genuine multi-racial outlook among the Africans. It must also he admitted that any efforts that have been made on the European side to encourage sincere political co-operation have received from the Africans a very disappointing response. There may still be just time to make good past mistakes and omissions on both sides. The purpose of the new plan is to offer to all the peoples of Northern Rhodesia a chance to develop a political system in which they can work honourably together for the common future of their country. I appeal to them, to all Rhodesians, of all races, to make the most of this chance, for it may well be the last chance they will have.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 20th February.]

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(POWER FOR THE TREASURY TO BORROW.)

Question again proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: When we ceased our deliberation on the Bill the night before last, I had posed a number of questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, one of which gave rise to considerable discussion and, ultimately, to the acceptance by the Leader of the House of a Motion, moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again". There has been a further discussion concerning that matter in the course of business statements by the Leader of the House and I understand that arrangements are now in hand to put the matter right on Third Reading. No doubt, there will be discussion as to the propriety of this course and the precedents with which, I am sure, the Leader of the House has come armed.
In the meantime, however, there were other points which I had raised and there may well be points which hon. Friends of mine would wish to raise, which require answers from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the hon. Gentleman delayed his reply to those points until after the resumption of business when private Members' time is over. At least, the points I raised on Monday were matters of substance. They were, I think, within the bounds of order, although, in Committee, on a Bill of this nature, one can never be quite sure what is and what is not within the terms of order. There are, however, those questions and I hope that the Financial Secretary will be in a position to answer them, if not now, at least in about three hours' time.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): As the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said, I may not have time to do so now, but I hope to answer the two or three specific points he raised when we resume our consideration in Committee.

It being Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed pursuant to Order [2nd November.]

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT TRADE

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I beg to move,
That this House, conscious of this country's need to export at least 30 per cent. of all it manufactures in order to pay for the 50 per cent. of the food and nearly 100 per cent. of the raw material requirements which it must import, and recognising this country's inability to compel the foreigner to buy British when cheaper or better articles are offered and being aware that labour costs in this country are high because nine-tenths of the world lives at one-fifth of our standard, urges Her Majesty's Government to make better known to exporting firms the facilities offered by the Board of Trade as an additional help but not as a substitute for the higher quality at lower price goods needed to secure the necessary bigger share of world exports if mass unemployment and real hunger in this country are to be avoided.

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate now that I do not intend to call either of the Amendments: to leave out from "import" to "urges" and to leave out from "exports" to the end and to add
deprecates the continued increase in overhead charges imposed on industry engaged in the export trade, requests an investigation into why prices have not been reduced, urges Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative to have established an International Fair Wages and Conditions Standard, and appoint a Ministry of Production and Economic Planning.

Mr. Osborne: After the dramatic importance of the debate on Northern Rhodesia, it may seem to this rapidly thinning House that exports are rather small beer. On the other hand, I take a different view and believe that, important as Central African affairs are to this House, exports are just as important, and I am sorry that so few hon. Members are staying to take part in this debate.
I should like first to congratulate the Board of Trade on the excellent services it has already provided in order to help exporters, especially the small exporter. On the whole, the big exporter can look after himself. He knows his way about the world and does not want a lot of help. It is the medium and the small men who need the excellent services provided by the Board of Trade.
I have only one criticism to offer my right hon. Friend the President of the


Board of Trade, and that is that whilst he criticises businessmen for not selling their wares aggressively enough abroad, the Board of Trade itself does not sell its services aggressively enough to our businessmen. It merely says "Here are the services; if you want them, come and get them." But a small businessman is not very well informed on these matters. The Board of Trade does not sell its services aggressively enough, and I wish it would do more.
I want also to congratulate the Government on the excellent services provided in various departments overseas—not only by Board of Trade representatives, but also by commercial counsellors whom one finds from time to time in various parts of the world.
In October, when I went from Hong Kong to Canton to attend the trade fair there, I felt a little nervous about going into Communist China for the first time, and I was greatly helped by our commercial counsellor in Peking, who was returning from leave. At the trade fair I was immensely impressed at the way in which this servant of our country knew the economic advisers in China, knew his way around, and was helping British businessmen at the fair. For those things we should like to say "Thank you". I am sure that all exporters are grateful for what is being done, but like Oliver Twist, we want a little more.
The first thing to do, if we can, is to make the nation export-minded. At the moment, there is a kind of cynical apathy towards the problem of exports. I am not complaining about this House, because it is not my place to do so, but it is just as though it was typical of the whole nation. When we were discussing Northern Rhodesia the House was crowded. Now that we are discussing exports there is only a handful of the faithful present. That reflects the attitude of the nation towards exports.
Amongst businessmen, and workers, too, the attitude is, "Well, it does not affect me, so why should I worry?" It seems that the only interest in the public mind today is whether Spurs will win the double—the cup and the championship.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Or whether Peterborough gets into the Third Division.

Mr. Osborne: And, no doubt, about that too. No one worries to the same extent about our bread and butter which come from our exports.
I remember so well, some twelve years ago, listening in this House to Sir Stafford Cripps. I had a very high regard for him. I remember him warning the House time after time that either we export more or we go hungry. But the tragedy is that the people say, "We have not worried about exports and we have not gone hungry. We have never had it so good." It is difficult to make them worry about exports when things seem so good to them.
There is a general refusal to face unpleasant economic realities. Some of my hon. Friends and some friends of mine in the City have tended to blame the trade unions and the workers. I want to put the blame squarely where it belongs—on both sides. In the City column of The Times on Monday, we had this exemplified by the opening paragraph of an article by the City editor, in which he said:
The industrial share market continues to confound most prophets by improving steadily in spite of the unfavourable economic background. Last week's brisk price rally after the brief reaction engendered by the F.B.I.'s review of business trends testifies once again to investors' willingness to ignore bad news.
It is not only the workers who are not interested—it is also the capitalists, the shareholders. It is useless talking to the Stock Exchange, in the terms of my Motion, about the threat of mass unemployment or hunger. These people just do not believe it. In today's Daily Telegraph, that newspaper's City editor says:
Buying continued by those who are prepared to turn a blind eye to balance of payments problems and narrowing profit margins.
No wonder the whole country is not a bit interested in the seriousness of our economic situation. But this concerns not only what I call the capitalist shareholders. I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) put down an Amendment to cut out the two salient points of my Motion. If I am allowed to refer to the Amendment—

Mr. Speaker: Well, no. I am not sure about that, for I do not propose to call it.

Mr. Osborne: I understand that the plea of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is that we should not call attention and should turn a blind eye, like the shareholders, to two important facts. One is that we cannot plan our exports. We cannot have a Ministry of Planning to see that our exports are sold, because no Government of any kind can compel the foreigner to buy British goods. We may have excellent exports in price and quality, but we cannot make foreigners buy them.
To give him a reminder, perhaps the House will allow me to say that in the coal industry we have an example of a trade which has been helped by Governments over the last fifteen years as no other industry has been helped. But no Government can make the foreigner buy British coal. Before the First World War we exported about 100 million tons of coal a year. By 1939 that figure was down to just under 40 million tons. In 1954 it was down to 13 million tons. Last year it was down to 3·4 million tons.
No economic planning can make the foreigner buy British coal for two simple reasons. First, there has been the development of oil as a fuel, and secondly. there has been the greater development of the European coalfields. To use economic planning as escapism from the unpleasant realities of our economic situation is most unfortunate. The question is what can the Board of Trade do to help? Within reason, the Board of Trade can still urge better salesmanship of our products. We can do what the former Prince of Wales, now the Duke of Windsor, suggested to English businessmen on his return from Argentina, as long ago as 1921—"Let the bosses go out to the export markets and make decisions on the spot." The Board of Trade could continue to urge along those lines, but I warn my right hon. Friend that not even the most aggressive salesmanship can continue to sell shoddy goods at high prices. No American type of aggressive salesmanship can always hoodwink foreign buyers. They want the best quality goods at the lowest prices and with good delivery dates.
Two weeks ago I was surprised to read in the Sunday Times an almost blistering

attack on the motor trade by Sir Miles Thomas, who should know what he is talking about. Sir Miles gave examples of the shoddy workmanship of British cars being exported. I have been surprised that since then no one in the motor trade has refuted what Sir Miles said.

Mr. John Hall: I think that the shop stewards of one of the major motor car firms did oppose and deny Sir Miles's allegations.

Mr. Osborne: I should have thought the manufacturers themselves could have done it instead of leaving it to their workmen. I take it that there is a good deal of substance in what Sir Miles Thomas said. That type of thing has to be tackled and tackled strongly.
Secondly, will the Board of Trade vigorously defend British exporters' interests in overseas markets? I know that it is difficult, but I want it to be done. My right hon. Friend could warn those countries who are discriminating against British goods that we shall adopt reprisals if driven to do so. People who will not buy from us will not sell to us. It should be said very plainly to them.
I will quote from a letter which I received yesterday from a director of a company which sells over 50 per cent. of its total production abroad and the chairman of which has spent more time abroad than he has at home—not recently, but over the last twenty years. He is personally known to my right hon. Friend and is, I believe, to see him tomorrow morning on this very issue. He writes to me:
There is another problem that has arisen in Venezuela. We have an outstanding account in that country and we are now notified that our local agent has been paid in local currency but there is no sterling available with which to transfer this money owing to us out of the country. This again is something which we manufacturers can do nothing about—it is entirely up to the Government Departments to give us assistance.
In The Times yesterday there was a little photograph of my right hon. Friend with the Venezuelan delegation which he was entertaining. I want my right hon. Friend to use his charm and his power to get them to pay for the goods which we have sent their country. That is something on which it is reasonable for the trader to expect the Government to help him.


The same man complains about the American forces in Europe ceasing to buy British goods. That is natural and inevitable. I cannot see how that can be altered.
There are other quotations from the letter. The first concerns South Africa:
I understand that the quota for the last quarter of 1960 was 40 per cent. of the goods imported during the qualifying period. For the first quarter of 1961 the quota has been reduced to 25 per cent.
What is the British exporter to do? The quota has ben cut, originally to 40 per cent. and now to 25 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to see that that quota is restored as soon as possible?
Then my correspondent refers to Ceylon:
You may know that their Ceylon Government Gazette Extraordinary, No. 12274 of 1961, dated 25th January, 1961, prohibits the import of certain goods…except under licence and it has apparently been made plain that no licences will be given.
Is the Board of Trade aware of that? Can it help? I understand the difficulties of Ceylon, but to shut out our traders completely from a traditional market seems hard.
Then my correspondent says about Jamaica:
Licences…have been held up since December and it has been impossible to get any. It is freely stated that the Government are going to review the whole situation of licences and there are rumours to the effect that it is the intention of the Government"—
that is, the Jamaican Government—
to protect the two local—factories so that items—will only be allowed in on quota, and at that the quotas will be very very small.
We are doing a lot to help in Jamaica in one way and another. Is the Board of Trade protecting us as far as it can in that important market?
Lastly, my correspondent refers to Southern Rhodesia—and it is strange that this should follow the debate which has just finished. He says:
We have very good reasons to believe that application is being made to the Government for increased duties…there, in order to protect local industry.
No one complains that local industries are being established in various parts of the Commonwealth, and all the trader asks is for a fair crack of the whip in the trade that is left.
My friend asks this final question:
I shall be glad to know whether our Government can put some pressure on to see that our markets in these places are kept open and not closed.
That is a fair request. I hope that I shall get a good answer to all my questions, but I hope for a good answer to this question especially. Next May, British industry is holding a large fair in Moscow when it is hoped that we shall do a considerably increased trade with the Soviet Union. What is the Government's attitude to overseas fairs? Will the Board of Trade do its best to support them? Permanent showrooms, where there was someone to take orders at once and transfer them, would be a good way of helping smaller exporters who cannot afford to keep men overseas.
I next ask my right hon. Friend about the treaties he made from time to time with the Communist countries. Here he has a direct responsibility. The Board of Trade has power to influence the schedules that appear in these trade agreements. I confess a vested interest here, because I am interested in the consumer industry—although, for obvious reasons, I have never executed an order with Iron Curtain countries.

Mr. Julian Snow: What are the obvious reasons?

Mr. Osborne: So that I can be like Mr. Khrushchev and can claim to have clean hands and a pure heart. That is a perfectly good answer.
The next time we reach a trade agreement with China or Russia, I plead with my right hon. Friend to strive to get a greater proportion of consumer goods included in the schedule. Obviously, the Communist Powers want to spend all the money they can on capital goods and then they use those capital goods to produce more of the consumer goods that we want to sell, thus driving us out of world markets. While the makers of capital goods want to do all the trade they can, we should ask for a minimum of consumer goods to be included in every schedule.
While on that issue, I want to press my right hon. Friend about the unsatisfactory answer which I received from one of his colleagues the other day. Earlier last month there was a cry from Moscow that British industry had sent


to Moscow knitwear goods, textiles, which were shoddy and useless. That protest was broadcast throughout the world, and it did our workers and our manufacturers a great deal of harm. It was a shocking advertisement for British industry.
Because I have interests in the trade, I tried to find out where those goods came from. On 10th January, the Daily Mail said:
Mr. Ian Mikardo, director of the firm which arranged the ordering and shipment of women's dresses described by the Russians as 'shoddy'"—
and it is a horrible thing that it should be broadcast to the world that we are producing shoddy goods—
told me yesterday: 'My company acted in a purely consultative capacity. We didn't make the goods.'
If people are to play with industries about which they know nothing, they ought to be responsible for seeing that good and not shoddy goods are sent out. They cannot turn around and say that it is nothing to do with them.
I ask my right hon. Friend to do all he can when he makes trade treaties to induce the Communist Governments to ensure that orders go through proper trade channels. It is outrageous that our trade should be spoken of in this way throughout the world's markets.

Mr. Jack Jones: Can the hon. Member tell the House who made the goods? They did not make themselves and the gentleman whose name has been mentioned did not make them. Can we be told what textile factory did make them and under whose direction and ownership that factory is?

Mr. Osborne: As was my duty, I went to the trade's export committee and there saw the manager who for a long time was unable to trace where they had been made. They had not been made by any recognised or reputable firm. It is a great pity that they should have been allowed to go out of the country without reputable firms knowing what was going on, so that the whole of British industry got a bad name in the world's markets.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Would not that position be rectified if purchasers from overseas, the Russians included, placed their orders through long-estab

lished confirming and buying houses in this country, when the trade operatives who know the style of particular goods are not only able to place the orders, but are able to ensure that goods of the highest quality are despatched?

Mr. Osborne: That is the point I was trying to make. When I put my Question to my right hon. Friend, he said that he did not have direct responsibility. Of course, he does not. The Russians buy through whom they like. All I am asking is that my right hon. Friend should ask the Russians not to put their orders through political camp followers.

Mr. John Hall: This is an interesting case. The same complaint was made about a very large consignment of shoes which was sent to Russia. It was done by direct contract with one of the internationally known shoes manufacturers in this country and was a total consignment of about £150,000. The value of the shoes about which complaints were made was about £140, so there was not much substance in the complaint. I imagine that if my hon. Friend examined this case he might find that the same could be said about it.

Mr. Osborne: If that be so, it is a great pity that the whole of British industry should be smeared.

Mr. Michael Shaw: The phrase "shoddy textiles" has been used in this connection and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) would make it clear that the word "shoddy" refers to the quality as distinct from the material of the textiles out of which the articles were made.

Mr. Osborne: It was not the fabric which was wrong.
The Daily Mail went on to say:
The Soviet newspaper, Economic Gazette, claimed that part of the order was shoddy, said 1,500 knitwear suits had been rejected, and alleged: 'Many of them were not sewn properly and were soiled with oil.'
Had these orders gone through normal channels, the normal channels would have seen that that did not happen. That is what men are in business for, and I beg my right hon. Friend not to shelter behind the excuse that he cannot make the Russians buy that way. He must induce them to put their orders through


proper channels and not pay what seemed to me to be extra commissions to men who at one time were saying how wicked it was that profits should be earned at all.
Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to encourage standardisation of products so that we can sell them abroad more easily? Can we standardise products at home so that they are the same, or nearly the same, as those used in Europe, Asia and other great markets? For example, I am told that last year the value of our exports of T.V. sets was less than £1 million. I am also told by responsible people in the trade that if we made sets using 625 instead of 405 lines it would be possible for sales to reach £100 million a year—and that is an estimate of a responsible firm. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to use his influence with the manufacturers, the B.B.C. and others so that we are not standing apart from the rest of the world?
I am advised that last year the Egyptians wanted 15,000 television sets but that they wanted them with the 625-line system. They came to this country, but we did not have the facilities for producing the sets quickly, so the order went to Germany. If we could have standardisation of that type, it would help not only in that, but in other trades.
Will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the Foreign Office to see that commercial counsellors abroad are given rather better status among the diplomats? In some places—not all—the commercial counsellor is regarded as the poor relation, with a rather lower social status than the others.
I also ask that the Board of Trade should work more closely with our ambassadors who are prepared to help industry. I give some examples of what I have in mind—and I am prepared to gives names and addresses afterwards, although it would not be wise to do so in the House. Last autumn, the British Ambassador in Rome suggested that about 10 electronic equipment buyers of the technical director level who would be interested in buying British electronic process control equipment should visit this country. The suggestion was passed to the Board of Trade, who passed it to one or two associations for comments. But because the comments of the associations were not as enthusiastic as the

Board of Trade thought they ought to be, the Board of Trade told our representatives in Rome to let the idea drop.
Luckily, our Ambassador in Rome said that this was too good a chance to let drop and himself got in touch with British traders who could help, and it was left to private industry to get these Italian buyers over here. Whoever turned down that idea in the Board of Trade—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sack him."] Yes. I think that I would sack him; it may be the Minister himself, but I am not in a position to say. When an ambassador is in a position to help business, it is a great pity that someone in the Board of Trade should say that the idea is not worth pursuing.
Recently, an English exporter of toy mechanisms, some of the parts of which come from Germany, asked the British Consul-General in New York for instructions about how to contact possible customers in the United States. I am told that he got a dusty answer. He was told to refer to his trade association in this country, which he had already done without success. He was also advised to go to the New York Toy Fair which was to be held some months later.
This British manufacturer got his German partner—since certain parts were made in Germany—to contact the German Embassy in Washington. Within nine days he received from the German Embassy a list of a number of possible American buyers, and the firm is now doing business worth hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. It seems ridiculous that things like that can happen. I ask my right hon. Friend to look into it.
When all is said and done, when the Board of Trade has done all it can to help, the solution to the problem lies in the hands of our manufacturers. The Board of Trade cannot do the job for our manufacturers and exporters. Our problem is how to drive, or to induce, the medium-sized and smaller businessmen away from the soft, easy and productive home market into the difficult, worrying and less profitable export market. How can we induce or compel our manufacturers to do that? Do what it will, the Board of Trade cannot do the manufacturers' job for him.
Whenever I talk to possible exporters, they say: "It is all very well you preaching to us. Make it worth our while to do it and we will export". That is the answer. They say: "Give us an export subsidy". I say: "That is not possible because of G.A.T.T., and other arrangements". Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that Income Tax and Surtax, which bears so heavily on the younger executives—and it is no good anyone saying that they do not—are brought down, and brought down substantially. Men do not go into business for fun but to make money. If we take too much money from them they will not make the extra effort required. I would like my right hon. Friend to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: "If we had Income Tax and Surtax with a top level of 15s., and a starting rate for Surtax a good deal higher than at present, that would be of considerable help to us".
I am reluctantly driven to say this, because I have been against it up to now. It is high time that we joined the European Common Market. We ought to get rid of all the quotas, tariffs and protection which British industry enjoys and let the cold wind of competition blow through our industries. Let us have competition. The quickest way to get that is to join the European Common Market. If we do that, I am confident that both labour and capital will pull up their socks and produce the goods at the right price.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In any observations that I make I cast no reflections whatever on the staff of the Board of Trade. In my view, they can feel satisfied with the work they have done during the last fifteen years. It is one of our duties to give credit where it is due, and I have no hesitation in doing that this evening. I did not take the criticism of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) seriously, so I will not comment on it.
In the proposed Amendment which, in accordance with Standing Orders Mr. Speaker has decided not to accept, a number of constructive proposals were made, and I propose to state the case, believing that sooner or later this country will have to accept most of them. I am

prepared to wait until that happens, but, unfortunately, we shall pay dearly for waiting if we wait much longer.
The first matter to which I draw the attention of the House is the constant increase—for which the Government and other authorities in the country are responsible—in the overhead charges on the export industry. I bear the marks of the years when we suffered from the economic lashes of world competition to such an extent that it affected us for the rest of our lives. I have not time this evening to go into details about that, but I want to avoid a repetition of those days, and one way to achieve that is to direct attention to the seriousness of this country continuing to increase the overhead charges of the export industry.
Let us consider the constant increases in the charges which arise from National Insurance. I am sorry to have to say this, and never in my younger days did I believe that I would live to make this comment, but this country has been left behind in the attention which we give to those who are sick through no fault of their own, and to those who are unemployed and disabled. There was a time when, based on a careful study of world events, we could say that this country led the world in many respects. Now, unfortunately, because of the reduction in the value of money due to devaluation and inflation, benefits have not kept pace with the changing values. Consequently, we have been left behind, and we are now probably one of the worst industrial countries in the world in our treatment of the sick, the unemployed and the disabled.
I said that many years ago in this House, and very few accepted it. I did not blame them, but what I was saying was based on a careful study of a number of documents pablisihed by the International Metalworkers Federation, the International Labour Office, and other organisations of that Character. Since then, Mr. Harry Douglas, Who represented the Trades Union Congress in the case that was presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago, has said the same thing but in a more up-to-date way. His statement was used by the Press in reporting that delegation, and this is now accepted by almost the whole trade union movement.
The first point to which I want to direct attention is that this responsibility


should fall on the Exchequer and not on the employer or the individual employee. It is time that the Government recognised this. The country ought to bear the responsibility for looking after people who are unemployed, sick and disabled. We ought not constantly to increase the burdens on industry and, as a result, increase overhead charges. The result is that we cannot meet the competition—or we shall not be able to do so for years to come—from those countries which spread the burden over the whole of their people by imposing a charge on the Exchequer rather than upon individual industries.
We should request an investigation into the reason why prices have not been reduced. I do not associate myself with a tendency which exists to make statements which are not based on facts. At a General Election it is the duty of people in a democracy to say things which are based on facts. One may be permitted to put a personal interpretation on them according to one's environment and social class; but that is different from making political capital to the detriment of the country to the extent to which that was done in the recent General Election. On that occasion Government supporters rightly prided themselves on the fact that prices were stabilised, but they did not explain the whole matter, as I wish to do tonight.
If anyone differs from what I have to say they need only go to the Library and ask the assistance of the staff there to furnish them with official statements in which will be found the basis of the case I propose to make. May I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the staff of this House, the numbers of which have increased during my time as a Member. They are more courteous than ever and because I appreciate that, I believe they deserve credit for the work they do.
It is not good enough to say that prices have been stabilised; they should have been greatly reduced. If internal prices had been reduced in accordance with the change in world prices, the cost of living would have been greatly reduced long before now. This would have improved the competitive position of our export industry and might have prevented a situation made difficult by claims for increases in wages.
I constantly read that excellent publication the Board of Trade Journal which I think has been greatly improved recently, especially as regards the statistical information contained in it. If one analyses the statistics, one comes to the conclusion that during the past twelve years commodity prices have been greatly reduced. I wish to ask why the commodity prices have not been reduced for British productive industry. The export industry starts, as it were, with one hand tied behind its back. Before any raw material goes into productive industry the charges for it, in relation to world charges, are already too high. This is because those importing raw materials are better organised than anyone else in the world. A study of the prices prevailing between 1930 and 1935 would show that in proportion to the growth of the trade associations with a grip on the importation of our raw materials there is the beginning of a changed relation between world prices and prices in this country. That is why I am surprised that the Board of Trade has not agreed to an investigation into this matter. We owe that to the British export industry.
The people about whom we complain should be taken to task for the policy which they have been pursuing. I suggest that the Government should take the initiative and work towards a standard of international fair wages and conditions. When I say that we feel very strongly on this matter I am not only speaking for myself. I speak for the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions which has recently passed several resolutions suggesting that if world trade is to be stabilised, if there is to be fair trading between one country and another, we must have some basis of fairness in order that competition may exist on a fair basis.
We have already established this in Britain. Most municipalities and Government Departments ensure that in their contracts there is a fair wages clause and that the conditions imposed by the tendering firm are fair. The International Confederation of Trade Unions thinks that if we are to hold our own in the world, sooner or later we must achieve this on an international basis. I am making these suggestions because I think that the Board of Trade in particular and the Government in general ought to give consideration to


this problem or else, sooner or later. Britain will be encountering further difficulties.
In this country we have established a relatively high standard of living, although not as high or as fair as I should like. We have a 44-hour week and there is bargaining between representative organisations engaged in productive industry. Today we must safeguard what we have achieved in the past so that we may use our past achievements as a basis for further progress. Unless we embark on an international policy of this character, it is only a matter of time before the world begins to undermine the standards which we have established.
Some of my hon. Friends with whom I have discussed these matters say, "You cannot compare our country with the United States." I admit that readily. We are concerned to safeguard our present position so that we do not drift towards worsening standards, and to that extent I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Louth. I believe that in the International Labour Organisation, in the United Nations and in our diplomatic negotiations we ought, wherever we can, to endeavour to support the idea of international fair wages and conditions.
I wish now to make a few observations based on that excellent publication, the National Institute Economic Review. This is the foundation upon which we should give the present situation our careful attention this evening. It sums up in a few words the present situation. It is this that makes the debate so important, and why I think it should receive attention after it has been reported.
The January issue of the National Institute Economic Review states:
Britain's economic growth in 1961 will inevitably be checked by the weakness of payments. If Britain is to achieve a faster and steadier rate of growth, it will be necessary for her to make major changes in her external economic policy. The whole object would be to make a rapid growth possible: to convince industry that it will take place in future years would require a major initiative from the Government.
I strongly support those observations. In my view, we have to work as quickly as we possibly can towards a large, lasting increase in the volume of our exports. I stand on good ground because, as an individual, I have been saying this for

fifteen years, and I have been prepared to support constructive proposals which would have put us in a far stronger position. We have lived to see the day when what was said then is now proved correct, with the exception that we have not et made the basic changes which the National Institute is asking should be made. In saying that, I am supported to a certain extent by even the Federation of British Industries and by many big electrical organisations, such as English Electric, Associated Electrical Industries, General Electric and all those who do not play marbles but who are responsible for large-scale production, based upon the skill which they have inherited as a legacy and handed down from one generation to another of the most highly-skilled and best-informed men, both mathematically and geometrically, in the world. It is for them that I am speaking, and I am very pleased to have that privilege. In accordance with their outlook, which is now receiving increasing support, we need to plan in order to obtain the best results from our resources, from our manpower and from our skill and our organisations. We have to work towards that more and more.
In saying that, I do not want anyone to think for a moment that I belittle British achievements of the past fifteen years. I believe that Britain and especially those engaged in productive industry were responsible for a miracle of achievement during those years. I speak of this with pride, but also with a touch of bitterness, because I would not be worthy of the name of man if I did not entertain thoughts of that kind. But I cannot forget the way in which the Americans treated us in 1940 when we were nearly down and out, when standing across the Channel was the greatest military machine up to that time, when we had to retreat and then pawn and sell our securities in America, even Courtaulds, and because the Americans thought that we were down and finished they charged us the market values of those days. We had to compensate the Courtauld shareholders who owned the securities at a value above the pre-war value before we reached the depths that we did. In addition, we cannot forget the way in which they treated Lord Keynes, and all that that meant. He has now gone to the grave, but he is remembered by


those of us who were privileged to be closely associated with him for what he did mainly in late 1945 and early 1946.
Therefore, we can speak about this, having now pulled through and having reached the situation that we have with a touch of pride, coupled with a touch of bitterness, at a moment when we are approaching our problems in a realistic way, having brought this about by the experience that we have gone through. It is remarkable that our people have pulled through in the way they have. I consider that it represents a miracle of achievement and entitles us to take the initiative in world affairs more than we have done during the past fifteen years. Instead of being on our hands and knees begging for crumbs from some people, like we have done far too often, we should be approaching our problems in the world international conferences. Remembering our achievements and what the world owes to Britain when we were standing alone and when we held that great military machine at bay, we believe that we are entitled to a greater voice in world affairs.
It was because of this that I put the following Questions to the Prime Minister. I asked him:
If he will consult other heads of Government with a view to preparing for a World Economic Conference early in 1961; and if, at this Conference, he will make proposals for an expansion of trade and the building of economic co-operation throughout the world.
My second Question was:
If, at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, he will propose an expansion of Commonwealth economic cooperation and a Commonwealth approach to the need for increased world trade.
I do not differ from the views expressed by hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Louth when he talked about the Six and the Seven. I say, however, that during the past few years we have been apt to pay too much attention to that and too little to the need for developing Commonwealth economic relations. I believe that there is a great potentiality in the Commonwealth if we would set out to organise the Commonwealth and develop a policy in accordance with what we owe now to the rest of the Commonwealth. In two world wars New Zealand, Canada and Australia came 100 per cent. to our

assistance and I believe that there is more than ever enormous good will in the Commonwealth.
Our relations with India are now better than ever they were. In tonight's previous debate there was a lesson to be learned in the way in which we have dealt with India, and I believe that there would be a great response to our expansion of trade and economic co-operation if we were to approach our problems in that way.
My final point is this. Russia has already offered to build Canada a number of motor manufacturing factories. I have before me the Globe and Mail of 11th January, which states:
The Soviet Union is ready to set up subsidiary plants in Canada to sell Russian cars.
Had I more time I should like to develop the lessons to be learned from this, because here is a basis for economic co-operation and expansion of trade between Canada and Russia. Here we have laid out a number of statements made by several members of the Canadian Government showing the prospects and possibilities. I am not for a moment speaking critically of them, but it is necessary for us also to adapt ourselves to the problems which will arise from now onwards in order that we may hold our own in world affairs.
I have further evidence for the case I am stating. I happen to have been associated with some of the most public-spirited men and women who have a great record in the export of their products. I give some examples from their experience. One of them states:
In regard to…Sydney, we do not think there is any chance of getting an order from them for cups, as we understand that they have changed over to Japan for their supplies. They are obtaining cups from Japan at a much lower price than you can quote or any other English manufacturer can quote.
Here is an extract from a letter from Canada:
The market is presently well saturated with Japanese cups and saucers at very low prices, and we feel that we will be running into more competition as time goes on.
The representative of a certain company which I shall not name, said:
A firm, as much as told us that its stores will not be buying much English ware this year.
In North Staffordshire approximately 60,000 of our people are engaged in the


pottery industry. We manufacture in quality and, relatively speaking, in price the finest and best value crockery in the world. All the Board of Trade officials and Ministers admit that that industry has a very fine record in exports. I think it could have a much better record. That is why I am calling attention to it. I believe it needs more and more support from the Board of Trade. I do not utter one word in reflection upon those responsible for the relationship between the Board of Trade and the industry at present. All I ask is that they should be given more authority and more power and that their relationship should be based on more modern policy in order that together better results can be obtained.
Here is another example. I have been associated with two or three men who run a family concern which is one of the oldest in the City of Stoke-on-Trent. The sons, who were well informed and well trained, are broken-hearted because, year after year, they had to contend with Japanese competition in Canada and America. As a result of that disappointment, after working year after year producing the best possible ware and carrying out an enlightened policy in labour relations from which they got the best results, they found that they were fighting a losing battle. They have now sold out broken-hearted, and that is the tendency which exists.
For that reason I have made my constructive proposals. I believe that we owe to those who are carrying on day by day and accepting great responsibility in industry an examination of their problems in order that our country may adopt a more enlightened policy and so that we can hold our own in world trade instead of carrying on as at present.

8.5 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: In view of the very short time available, I feel sure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) will not wish me to follow him in any detail.
We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) for raising this important question tonight. We hear too little of it in this House of Commons. I should like to emphasise a most important point which he made at the

beginning of his speech. That is the great efforts which the Board of Trade is making in the direction of helping exports. When one travels in many Commonwealth and other countries one nearly always finds most enthusiastic, efficient representatives of the Board of Trade. They cannot hear our debates here. They see us only in a very fleeting way, but I hope that sometimes they realise how much we appreciate their efforts.
Likewise, we greatly appreciate the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who has travelled a great deal in the last few years. When he comes back from his travels he goes to the appropriate association or chamber of commerce and tells it what openings there are for that organisation. One cannot over-emphasise the importance of exports. Truly, they are the life-blood of industry, and, in fact, of the whole country. Without them we could not exist for very long. We should neither work nor eat, so we would very soon perish.
As most hon. Members know, I have been connected with the export trade for very many years—for about forty years. One thing which stands out in my experience throughout the whole of that time is the constant change that has taken place. Exports never stand still and markets do not stand still. Requirements change and people's ideas of the goods they want also change. Forty years ago our greatest export industry by far was the Lancashire cotton textile industry. At that time, it was run more efficiently and better geared for exports than any other industry in this country has been either before or since—I think it probably true to say of any export industry in the world.
It amazes me how little is made now of the experience and "know-how" of those Manchester merchants who knew the world fairly well. I wish to give a very few figures to show the size of that industry at that time and what it contributed to the wealth of the country. Just before the First World War, its production, roughly speaking, was 8,000 million yards a year, of which 83 per cent. was exported at a value of well over £100 million. In value, that probably could be multiplied by at least five today. There has been no other industry


in any part of the world which has had anything of comparable size and efficiency.
That gradually diminished through Far Eastern competition until, just before the Second World War, production had dropped to less than half, roughly 3,700 million yards, of which 46 per cent. was exported at a value of £54 million a year. I am informed that the production of cotton textiles last year was in the region of only 1,400 million yards. That is about a sixth of what it was forty years ago. The exports, on balance, were negligible. We imported a certain amount of cloth and exported probably a very similar yardage.
The thing that strikes me is that the great experience which exists in Lancashire, in Manchester and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, is largely unused today, although it could be adapted to other consumers goods and would be most valuable. I remember that in my early days in the cotton industry we would get our cables in at about ten o'clock in the morning. Then we would telephone to the manufacturers saying what our requirements were for that day and they would meet us on 'change. If we were fortunate we would buy the goods and, if not fortunate, we would wire back that we wanted a higher price. Within minutes of the time that we placed our order the manufacturer would cover his yarn for the right delivery, the right price, and so forth. Likewise, within a matter of minutes the spinner would cover his cotton requirements in Liverpool on the future's market.
There can be no other great industry in which everything was tied up so quickly and so efficiently as that business was at that time. We would get our goods with perhaps three or six months' delivery, according to the requirements and the type of goods. They would go through the Manchester warehouses and be packed and sent off. Many people thought that there were great profits in that trade. I assure the House that that was far from the fact. Most of the Manchester goods exported at that time attracted a gross profit to the merchant of from 1 to 4 per cent., according to the type of goods and the size of the order. Enormous busi-

ness was done at a gross profit of 1 per cent. out of which salaries, rates, rent, etc., had to be paid. The business prospered greatly until the Far Eastern competition began, against which it was impossible to compete.
Now many countries are making their own textiles. It is the fashion. As soon as a country emerges to freedom, it wants to set up its own factories. One of the first things—it is comparatively easy—is a textile mill. As I said a short time ago, the export business is constantly changing. Manufacturers and merchants always have to be on their toes to see what is required and provide it. Many goods were bought by the merchants and exported as principals—that is, we might export goods to Calcutta, selling them the day we bought them. They would be taken up by the dealers and after perhaps three months' credit they would be paid for and the business would be completed.
In other markets the goods would be shipped on the merchant's own account, and he would take the risk of selling them when they arrived. It is a strange fact that goods were worth much less on arrival in Calcutta than they were before shipment in Manchester, because the logic of the Indian was that once goods were in Calcutta they obviously would have to be sold there at a price and they could not be shipped elsewhere.
Each market had its "know-how". There is a different technique in almost every market. Credit varies in every market. All those things were known to the Manchester merchants of the day. I am only sorry that much of that information and knowledge is not being taken up by people who want to export for the first time today.
The three essential things in exporting are price, quality and delivery. Price is a matter of competition. It must be reasonable. I have sweated through the markets of Calcutta, Singapore and Shanghai and I know only too well the impossibility of selling anything if it is not the right price. It must also be of the right quality, otherwise a merchant does not get a repetition of the order. Design changes periodically. It is never static. That necessitates a visit by a manufacturer or special people who know designs and can make suggestions.


Delivery is also most important. It seems to have been largely overlooked since the last war. Generally speaking, if goods were not deliverd on time and the market price went against the manufacturer, they were immediately cancelled and the merchant got an allowance. Nowadays people do not seem to have any regard for the sanctity of contracts and the time of delivery. I was brought up to believe that delivery was as important as price and that one must conform to the promises one made.
Delays do an enormous amount of harm. I give as an example the harm which the tally clerks' strike in London caused a few months ago. Many merchants suffered in this part of the country, but few people know of the way in which the trouble has spread it ripples over the waters and how far the difficulties and drawbacks from the strike have spread.
I will give one instance. There was a small shipment of umbrellas to be shipped from Liverpool at the end of August. Owing to the strike in London, the ship did not reach Liverpool on time. The letters of credit were dated only to the end of August, so cables had to be sent out to try to get an extension for the letters of credit. Owing to difficulties in the market to which the goods were going, which was Ceylon, it was difficult to get an extension and the goods were delayed a month or two later. When they arrived the monsoon season had passed, for which the goods were particularly required.
For that reason, the recipient in Colombo either had to hold the goods over for another year, which he did not want to do, or sell them at a cut-throat price. That very small instance shows the loss and difficulties which arose out of the unauthorised tally clerks' strike in London. I am sure that it could be multiplied thousands of times.
Another way of getting business is by investment overseas, especially in the Commonwealth. Forty years ago, when this country was rich, vast investments were made and as a result a great many orders of all kinds came to this country —for factories, railways and other things, as well as for consumer goods. Now the amount of money which we can invest abroad is somewhat limited, but there are many cases where factories

are being built by experts from this country—by companies which are supplying the "know-how" and sending experts out. They manage the concerns locally until the local people have a grasp of the methods and the situation. That can be a valuable invisible export, which should be encouraged.
We are told that both America and Germany are giving guarantees against political risks. If that is so, would it not be wise for the Board of Trade to consider similar methods here? It is very much more attractive for an investor to invest overseas if he can be sure that political risks will not arise and prevent him not only making a profit, but probably recovering his capital as well.
A Question was asked yesterday about the profits of the Export Credits Guarantee Department over the last few years. I appreciate that it is difficult to give a reply, because it is a never-ending credit and there are claims years after the credit is made. However, I have heard that substantial profits are normally made over the years and, at a certain time, are paid back to the Treasury. If that is the case, would it not be wiser to accumulate those profits and extend the terms of credit, or give better terms for existing credit? If the commercial and industrial communities have paid too much for the credit, they have a right to benefit from it in some way, either by extensions or by a reduction of the rate.
I wish to refer for a moment to the European market. I am told that, of the exports of heavy electrical plant, the amount sent to Europe is very low. During 1957 to 1959 the export of turbines, generators, large transformers and switch-gear to the E.F.T.A. and Common Market countries amounted to only 4 per cent., whereas it amounted to 72 per cent. to the Commonwealth countries. I urge the President of the Board of Trade to try to remedy that situation. It would appear that the European countries are determined to keep this type of goods out, just as America was some time ago. It is most important that my right hon. Friend should use every effort to allow these goods to go to those countries on normally competitive terms. We do not ask for favours.
What is the answer to all this? I have little faith in exhortation. People go into


business to make a decent living. They want reasonable help or incentives. I will not go further than that. For example, because of the low level of income at which one pays Surtax, there is little incentive for an able young man to travel the world, in search of business, which is very hard work, as those who have done it know. Again, I urge the President of the Board of Trade to consider this matter and see what he can do about it.
Early in the war an export board of important businessmen was set up. It was then vital that we should increase our exports to pay for the goods which we required from America. As far as I know, that board came to an end shortly after the war and there is no counterpart today. It might be well worth while considering setting up a similar body. Great firms, like I.C.I. and Unilever, have their own fine distribution organisations all over the world, but there are smaller firms which are not familiar with the export markets. On the other hand, there are many merchants who want to get new business, and if there were someone to encourage them to come together it might be very valuable.
The Crown Agents place in this country a large number of orders from the Colonies and, I think, from some other countries. It has been said—I do not know with what truth—that they do not always place the orders which they might place in this country and that it has been known that they have almost diverted British orders to overseas manufacturers. I wonder whether we may have an answer to that point. I presume that the Board of Trade has a great deal to do with the Crown Agents, although I do not know which Minister is directly responsible for them.
With the constant change in the type of exports, we must be on our toes. It is a question of brain, not brawn. In the old days we lived by exporting consumer goods. The quality of those goods must be improved by our brains the whole time. Motor cars may be worth £600 or £700 a ton, aeroplanes £30,000 a ton and atomic plant perhaps much more. We must educate and help the technical and mechanical brains of this country to create the things which newly emergent countries will not be able to produce for years. I feel sure that this

is only too well known to the Board of Trade, but it is something which we should all endeavour to do.
Last, but not least, do we tell our workmen, enough about exports? Would it not be a good thing sometimes to send workmen's representatives to some of these markets to try to sell goods? Do the people responsible for the tally clerks' strike realise for one moment the tremendous harm which they have done to this country and to themselves? We must take these people into our confidence and to teach them. This has not been so necessary in the past, but it is vitally necessary today.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert Woof: It is as well that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) was lucky in the Ballot and has selected this subject for discussion, because at some time this House will have to discuss the problems of the export trade at greater length and in much more detail. I am sure the House listened with deep interest to the thoughtful and well-reasoned speech of the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow). He focussed attention on some valuable matters which are of concern to all of us.
In approaching the pressing problems of trade, I must confess that I have not any special knowledge of economics or of any systematic treatise for curing economic illness. I have often thought that the object of theoretical economists was to make such subjects as depressing and difficult as possible. But it seems to me that there are some things in economic movements which are vital for an understanding of our immediate future. It does not take a monopoly of wisdom to understand that the foundation of economic thinking today is a view of the world picture which has changed completely since nations were trying to rebuild their economic systems after the war, when there was a brisk demand for all kinds of goods and for any quantity of them.
Whatever political doctrinaire theories we may have and whatever we may think of the present economic situation, we must acknowledge that among the chief problems of the controllers of industry is the one to decide what forms of production shall take place.
Together with this and other matters that are vital to the conduct of successful business, it is essential to find the means and the market to sell goods that factories are capable of producing. Therefore, for obvious reasons, this is a matter not simply affecting individuals but one on which millions are dependent for their livelihood and wellbeing. Consequently, the Motion represents a medium for developing and expanding trade in general and thereby improving the opportunities of increased employment for British workers.
In the United States of America economic distress is most striking in the old industrial areas of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, where whole mining communities are badly feeling the effect of depression and displacement as a result of mine after mine closing down as a consequence of increased competition from oil and natural gas, which has proved to be the precursor of so much misfortune.
In the circumstances, with which we are all familiar, it is not surprising to learn that the United States will make an effort to expand its foreign trade, especially when President Kennedy's recent State of the Union Message exposed the need for emphasis to be placed upon economic expansion. We know that this has not been made easier by what was accepted as the economic policy of the Eisenhower doctrine. If the American Administration realises, as it does, the failure to secure anything like full use of available productive resources and the need to reverse the restrictive policy of not making the best use of economic resources, I would unhesitatingly say that a similar policy should be applied to Great Britain.
The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich referred to the distant past when Britain obtained a long lead over her competitors which enabled us to have the pick of the world's markets for our wide and growing range of products at a time when the rest of the world was not in a position to take advantage of the new methods of production. The striking contrast of the impact and movement of present-day demand presents a quite different perspective with much potential commercial rivalry. Yet in spite of all the mounting complications in international

affairs and the growing confusion, it is realistic to strive all the time to improve our export trade, particularly when we see many industrial leaders trying to seize the growing opportunities of East-West trade, which could be a very good thing for the country rather than a disadvantage.
The rate of East-West trade appears to be rising steadily. The analysis of United Kingdom trade for the ten months ending 31st October last year shows a total value of exports to the U.S.S.R. of £31,317,104, to China of £26,083,166 and to Poland of £12,374,290.
What is most striking of all is that in the same period there was a total of £128·6 million representing West Germany's trade with the Soviet Union, China and their satellites. One can hardly fail to ponder and give much thought to such an expansion of German trade, emerging as it has done in spite of political and ideological conflicts, memories of a devastating war and as a consequence of what was once recognised as the world's most comprehensive blueprint of a master plan for world conquest. As the volume of the East-West trade is now three times more than it was ten years ago—its importance is now beginning to be appreciated—notwithstanding the fact that many big orders were placed with British companies last year, the trade is capable of expanding above its present level.
The hon. Member for Louth referred to the British Trade Fair to be held in Moscow in April. It is now recorded that about 620 British firms will be exhibiting their wares. This is recognised as an important beginning, but I think I would go further than the hon. Member for Louth. I think that a great market like this should have a permanent trade exhibition, representing all British products. In fact, this exhibition should not remain in Moscow, but should be mobile. It should be taken to Leningrad, into the Ukraine and even into Georgia, because the Russian buying agencies are based on the Republics and are not all centred in Moscow.
In these times, it is not strange to hear and to read of an increased consumer market in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wants textiles, household equipment and good shoes of our own making. I think one hon. Member who interjected


when the hon. Member for Louth was speaking said that 200,000 pairs of shoes were sent to the Soviet Union between June, 1959, and September, 1960. I see from the prospectus of the Trade Fair to be held in Moscow that the British Footwear Manufacturers' Federation is to have quite a display. It is to be hoped, in view of what one hon. Member said, that this display will prove to be of much better shoes than the shoddy shoes sent to the Soviet Union earlier.

Mr. John Hall: I do not think that should be allowed to pass without comment. There is no question of shoddy shoes having been sent to Russia. Out of a total order of £150,000 worth of shoes, the only complaints represented a total in value of about £140, and when the Soviet authorities investigated the complaints they found that there was no real substance in the complaints printed in Russian papers. The trouble was due to the misuse of shoes for purposes for which they were never designed.

Mr. Woof: I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) for his intervention. I thought the hon. Member for Louth was drawing attention to what another hon. Member had said about shoddy goods going to the Soviet Union.
We are led to believe that the progress of Soviet industrialisation has created a demand for machinery and electrical equipment. There is a tremendous market for tractors, of which the British makes, we are given to understand, are the best and cheapest in the world. All that is required to get consumer goods into this market is, first, the British firms should have the same credit facilities as are granted for trade with other countries.
While the Anglo-Soviet Trade Treaty of May, 1959, negotiated a five-year agreement, it did not fix any target. What it did, however, was establish the framework within the agreement within which a two-way trade traffic could develop. We realise, of course, that there has been some distinct improvement and progress made since this agreement was drawn up, but much more will have to be done if British manufacturers are to fulfil this potential trade. All the evidence—and

as far as I am aware no one will deny it—is that while the Russians have adapted themselves as hard bargainers, they are, nevertheless, fair and good traders in paying up for the goods they receive.
In China we have another great potential market for British goods. It is a fact that a great deal of the world trades with China today. Even America, in spite of her opposition to China, did indirect trade with China last year of over £60 million through Hong Kong and Japan. This trade to China is much larger than our own, and as millions of Chinese agricultural workers today are still tilling the land by hand with wooden ploughs it would appear that there is tremendous scope for British agricultural equipment there, particularly our own small British tractors.
The restrictions on trade to China through pressures, so that our traders are not allowed to supply what are called strategic goods, do sound ridiculous today. Everyone knows that these restrictions are outmoded by the performance of guided missiles and their allied relationships, and unless we move into the Chinese market soon we shall probably find to our dismay that other countries will monopolise this market to our exclusion and disadvantage. It is obvious that a policy of restriction has not weakened the links of the Eastern bloc. We know that the Soviet Union has marked a swift transition from the age of primitive methods of production which it endured for centuries to this age of mechanical and giant power, jumping most of the earlier and intermediate stages passed through by Great Britain and the United States.
In these times of strain, uncertainty and frustration it is always tempting to think of final solutions which could be found. There is no easy way, I admit, to fulfil the combination of requirements. Only by a great deal of hard work shall we be able to move into tranquil waters. I want to make it quite clear to the House that I have no interests whatsoever to declare, as I believe that the whole purpose of economic activity lies in what it can contribute to human happiness and the satisfaction of a better life.
Therefore, as we need an expanding economy with increasing markets, it seems


to me that Sir George Bolton, Chairman of the Bank of London and South America, sounded the right note when he said at the American Chamber of Commerce in London on 8th February that it was his belief, with the advent of the Kennedy Administration, that the climate was right for America to liberalise its thinking on trade with the Soviet bloc. He expressed the view that large benefits were to be obtained from the expansion of trade with Russia and the satellites and that there was a growing feeling among genuine friends in America that the continuance of the present policy would prove to be harmful to American interests in the long run. The knowledge and experience of so prominent a person deserves our sober attention.
Without attempting to injure reason by confining my mind to the authority of belief, I have tried to be as objective as the tangle of present affairs will allow. As Shakespeare said:
Thoughts are but dreams till their effects are tried.
We should endeavour to pursue a course of action based on thought which we hope will be effectively translated into the language of facts.
I firmly believe that progress in the further development and expansion of East-West trade would contribute to greater stability in international commerce. It must be a medium for the achieving of human satisfaction and human confidence. According to our own interests and aspirations, it will enable us to guide and control a constructive and progressive civilisation in which the worst catastrophes can be averted, labour can be put to good use and all difficulties overcome and in which, we hope, peace throughout the world will prevail.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I propose to talk about exports generally. I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) for moving the Motion and giving us this opportunity to discuss it. I hope that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks at any great length, but I should like to take his point that we should develop our trade with China considerably.
I assure the hon. Member that those of us who are interested in exports, would develop trade as much as we possibly could with any country from which we could obtain proper payment facilities. The difficulty with China is that she has no foreign exchange with which to pay, and, as far as I know, she has not applied for any credit to be given to her by Her Majesty's Government to enable her to pay British manufacturers who might trade in China.
Many hon. Members will remember that three years ago we received a trade deputation from China. Hon. Members saw the delegation in the Palace of Westminster. I asked them if they had any currency facilities with which to pay for the goods they wished to buy from us. They made it perfectly clear that what they wished to do was to barter goods with us, and these were goods which we already take from our Commonwealth countries. We therefore would have had to deny our custom to Commonwealth countries, which already buy from us in large quantities and which have the necessary credits and which are tied to us by strong traditional loyalties, in order to trade with China upon a barter basis. That just is not on and was not on then. If we are to do business with China credit arrangements will have to be made. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will be very willing to help to make financial arrangements so that British exporters can obtain currency for the goods which they export.
I believe that the whole export problem revolves around changing fashions and requirements. We have largely to look at our export situation and potential in the light of the changing requirements of capital goods overseas and the growing reluctance of a great many foreign countries to buy from us many of the consumer goods which they have bought in the past and which they themselves are manufacturing.
I should like, first, to deal with heavy industry—principally the engineering and electrical industries. British engineering companies have a long tradition, dating back to the extension of the Industrial Revolution, of sales from this country to other countries, and that tradition has persisted despite the intervention of two world wars. Today, engineering products account for


about 30 per cent. of our total exports. Many engineering companies sell abroad more than 50 per cent. of the total goods which they produce. Our exports of consumer goods are, unfortunately, in decline in many of the countries to which exports of capital goods are increasing, but it is true to say that today the order books of the engineering and electrical industries are very reasonably full.
Before we consider the possibilities, it is desirable to examine the trend of our exports in relation to those of our principal overseas competitors. I take, particularly, the exports of the United States, Western Germany and the United Kingdom between 1956 and 1959. The share of the United States declined, and the United Kingdom just about held its position. However, there was a very great increase in exports by Western Germany. Also—this is not realised in many quarters—the engineering exports of France increased over those four years by no less than 22 per cent., and there has also been an increase, though not to such a marked degree, in engineering product exports from the Netherlands, Italy and Japan, these covering a whole range of machinery and electrical goods and apparatus. During the same period 46 per cent. of our exports went to Commonwealth countries. The United States has attained a dominant position in Canada, obviously because of the geographical situation of the two countries and the advantages of selling so much more close to home.
One of the very important features about Britain's situation is that in 1959 India was our best customer. It is a very happy thought that India has attained that position. It is a position for which we should be all the more grateful, because it shows that, despite our long period of rule there, that country still has for us strong trade associations with us. These ties exist although we are divided from India by race, colour, language and, in many cases, religion. The Indians have emphasised their close ties with this country through the wonderful manner in which they have received our Sovereign during the past weeks. That very fact also augurs well for an even greater increase in our exports to India.
The economy of the Common Market is rapidly expanding. Britain and the United States have not established the share in those countries which we might have expected, and which we certainly hoped for. It is in the Common Market countries that the very considerable growth of French exports of machinery and electrical apparatus has taken place, and it may well be that it is this which lies behind much of the resistance to our efforts to join the Common Market. It may be that the French anticipate that they would have far greater difficulties in selling in the Common Market countries if we were to go in with them on an equal basis.
We have made some progress in the European Free Trade Association, but in 1958 and 1959 we did not make as much progress in the member-countries as did West Germany. Here again, there is a lesson to be learnt. In 1959, West Germany sent no less than 29·7 per cent. of her exports to E.F.T.A. countries, while only 27·3 per cent. went to the Common Market countries.
West Germany is, therefore, very interested in retaining her position in E.F.T.A., and this might well encourage her, on a basis of quid pro quo, to consider, even more favourably than she has in the past, our entry into the Common Market. There is no doubt that she is very sensitive to the development of E.F.T.A., and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will take note of that, as will my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in the negotiations that lie ahead.
In 1959, the Common Market countries took 14·3 per cent. of our machinery exports. The curious thing is—and again, this presents opportunity to negotiate with the Common Market from strength—that West Germany also took quite a considerable amount of our exports of machinery and electrical apparatus. I believe that the picture is encouraging. Even in the United States, where there is great domestic strength, British exports have made progress. In 1959, we said in the United States more than we did in 1957 and 1958. Obviously, there may be difficulties in the South American markets and these will probably increase still more before they ease. We just held our own in those markets from 1956 to 1959.
Much has been said about Iron Curtain countries tonight, and in looking for opportunities to export it is no good merely considering certain little areas and casting our eyes hopefully to small divisions. We must also look at the whole field of exports throughout the world. There is, obviously, opportunity in the Iron Curtain countries. The supremacy in them of West Germany is being challenged now by the United Kingdom and France. I believe that the figures for 1960 and 1961 will show a considerable improvement in our position in those countries.
The hon. Member for Blaydon referred to the opportunities in the Soviet Union, and there is no doubt that, as a result of the 1959 trade agreement, there will be considerably greater opportunities there, as more opportunities will result from the 1960 trade agreement with Poland. The sales of British machinery and electrical goods to most of the Communist countries will improve. It is interesting and noteworthy to observe that in 1959 the United Kingdom exported more machinery and electrical goods to the U.S.S.R. than did any other country outside the Communist bloc. That shows that many of the peregrinations of my right hon. Friend have been carried out to very considerable advantage, particularly his visits behind the Iron Curtain and to Russia. He is an extremely good salesman. He has great charm and he knows his subject. He is out to get business on reasonable terms.
There is no doubt, however, that we must face the fact that West Germany has made remarkable progress in recent years. She has overtaken Britain as the world's second greatest exporter of industrial and electrical machinery and is very closely challenging the United States for the first place. How has Germany achieved this? I would remind the hon. Member for Blaydon that there is no evidence that she has done so by skullduggery, or endeavouring to evade fair trade conditions. If we look at the figures we find that the Germans have not entered in any great strength into markets where there is a great deal of political uncertainty. She has not given long-term credits in very many instances. We find that her sales effort has taken place on a broad front with special emphasis on the more industrialised and sound countries. Those are the countries

that West Germany has exploited and they are mostly countries which have the ability to pay.
There is a great opportunity for Britain in E.F.T.A. in the years ahead. That opportunity should be developed to the full. Our sentimental and traditional ties, and our long association with the Commonwealth countries have brought preferential treatment to the sale of British goods. There, too, lie great opportunities. Probably our best ambassador is Her Majesty, who has done so much in the past few weeks in India. Wherever she goes the Queen stimulates affection for and interest in this country which can only bring benefit to our exporters and manufacturers. It should be Government policy to invest more public money and so encourage private investment in the Commonwealth countries.
At the same time, industry should mount a parallel sales effort in these countries. I refer particularly to Canada —where, above all, it is needed—and to Australia. Both those countries are becoming highly industrialised and the need for capital goods is increasing the whole time. I believe, however, that one has to face the facts. Profits are likely to be particularly thin in these countries during the early years. Our manufacturers must accept a policy of growing with the countries to which they export. That applies particularly to Canada and Australia, where, I am sure, there will eventually be a pay-off.
Our performance in the United States of America has been creditable, considering some of the domestic discriminatory action by the late American Government. The Americans are bound to favour domestic production, to a reasonable extent, as we expect to do here, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can with the American authorities to make sure that, when contracts are put out and we tender at competitive prices and can undertake the jobs, we get more favourable consideration than we have had in the past.
There should be closer association between this country and many American manufacturers. A tie-up between the right type of British firm and American firm should be encouraged by the Government. American industry is constantly extending its chain


of affiliated overseas subsidiaries and it is possible to sell British machinery to the American principals of those overseas associates, which could be a considerable source of dollar earnings.
I refer again to the opportunities in the Outer Seven. In present circumstances, the Common Market obviously poses a difficult challenge, but here again, even while we are out, it is possible to get the thin end of the wedge into those countries. It is still possible for some English companies, where long runs can be expected and the cost of tooling can be borne, to set up factories within the Common Market. Where only short runs can be expected, and the cost of tooling would be too high, there are still opportunities for exporting, provided that there is a drive behind the effort.
The possibilities are substantial in Eastern Europe, where agreements have been made and where the standard of living, which in some of those countries is still very low, is constantly rising, although it is not as great as it is in the Commonwealth or E.F.T.A. countries where the high standard of living obviously provides great opportunities. Let us not lose sight of the fact that in all the Communist countries every evidence implies that there is a movement upwards and that the emphasis in those countries is on expanding heavy industries and the number of machine tools. In the U.S.S.R. the growth in standards of living in future will have an important impact on world trade.
We must look to the opportunities in the Far East and in the Arab States. Economically, those countries are even less advanced than the countries of Eastern Europe, but there is this urge towards industrialisation and, because of their lack of background of industrialisation, there is still an opportunity to create whole factories under consortia of companies making bids for production of whole factories and production units. That will involve the closest co-operation and loose financial ties among companies working together in the same sphere, but not exactly on the same lines, in this country.
The Government can also help by giving exporters advice and credit facilities, and, indeed, in some cases by helping to arrange them. They can obviously

help by increasing the status of the British trade commissioner in some countries, as my hon. Friend said, and by creating in those countries a good market research department which is readily available to British exporters.
At home, we ought to look at the whole question of taxation. It is essential that if possible, taxation should be reduced, to leave more cash in companies so that it can be more rapidly ploughed back into more modern plant, which, in turn, would help us to produce machinery for export at cheaper prices and enable us to use both our manpower and finances more economically
Such a policy would enable many of our manufacturers to carry on their developments with their own resources. I believe that most manufacturers would be only too willing to replace their machinery much more quickly than they do if there were a more generous policy of depreciation allowances.
I believe that the German recovery has taken place largely because of the lenient view taken by the German Government of that aspect. Not only can plant be written off more quickly, but apparently the German Government have recognised the consequences of inflationary pressure in replacing machinery. In that connection the devaluation of assets is authorised for depreciation and taxation purposes. That happens also in France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy. The Governments of all those countries are more liberal than the Government of the United Kingdom.
At home, the relaxation of controls, followed by the imposition of fierce controls on consumer goods at a later date because of the play of the economy, does little to help manufacturers of capital goods. We cannot base the expansion and modernisation of engineering industries, or any other industry, on exports only, with a home market that fluctuates widely. It is extremely difficult to plan ahead in those circumstances, and all the time manufacturers feel that they have to hold back their finances and production on a tight rein when they might be increasing capital equipment and extending their production.
In capital goods, as in consumer goods, what I would call "fashion" must be taken into consideration. We


must all the time endeavour to improve and alter the design of our engineering and electrical goods. It may not be possible to quite the same extent as with consumer goods, but it should be tried, because I think that we must accept that many of the countries to which we send capital goods have the ability to copy our designs. If we do not move with the times and bring in constant improvements and use all our technical resources—of which we have plenty—to the full we shall lag again in our exports of machinery and like commodities. We must all the time aim to improve.
I intervened for a few moments in a debate a week ago and said that a lot of the trouble in our motor car industry, particularly in America where there has been a fall back, was due to the failure of British car manufacturers to realise that the motor car of today is largely a fashion article. Mr. and Mrs. Jones buy a model because it is something new and because Mrs. Jones likes the look of it. Other people take the same model. When they are thinking of a replacement the Joneses, who started the fashion, will not buy another English car which looks and works like the one that they had orignally.
I do a considerable business with America in consumer goods. I believe that there is an opportunity for a great many small firms in this country to increase their exports there and to other countries, if they take advantage of the buying houses to which I referred, where there are trained people who are constantly looking for new sources of supply. They are prepared to assist potential suppliers from this country to equip themselves to sell to firms in America and other countries. There should be an opportunity for a very considerable increase in our export trade and I hope that more and more small manufacturers will take advantage of the existing facilities. I know that they exist in the Board of Trade, and my right hon. Friend would be only too happy to bring them to the notice of manufacturers.
But when all these things have been taken into consideration no Minister or Government can impose exports from this country on other countries, nor can they create them. In the final issue it depends on hard selling by exporters of

the right products at the right price, with reasonable delivery dates.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) made a better finish to his speech than a start. He said exactly what needs to be said. Industrialists in this country must realise that they are in keen competition with the rest of the world. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) should be congratulated on two things. He has brought to the notice of the House the need for intensive thought on this tremendous problem, and he has called attention to the fact that there exists uncertainty and a feeling that things are not quite so good. We have been told we never had it so good, and people who are told too loudly that everything is all right are inclined to an attitude of laissez faire. They believe what they are told and then suddenly someone like the hon. Member for Louth, or other people who are in industry and know what is required, begin to say that that story is not quite what it seems.
This country is beset by tremendous problems, which have the effect of bringing hon. Members on both sides of the House closer together. The industrialist wants the problems solved because he wants to prosper. He needs more trade and, therefore. more profit. If he prospers those who produce the goods will also prosper. We cannot go round the world telling people that we want more trade. The period of exhortation is finished. We must get down to it; double up; look sharp and be quick. I get into serious trouble because I go about telling people about the situation in industry, while the hon. Member for Louth is congratulated on lowering his golf handicap. Those sort of things just do not add up.
Neither does it add up to anything when people like the hon. Member for Gillingham exhort the engineering industry to do better. He said the industry was doing remarkably well but, of course, he wants it to do better and to get a share of the additional trade which was "pinched" last year by the Italians. People forget what is going on. Last year, relatively speaking, Italy produced more steel than any other nation under the sun. These things matter. And the Italians did not stock their steel. I refer to the question of exports


and engineering, because the production of steel is involved and we cannot tell the steel workers, the mineworkers, the shopkeepers and everyone else that we want everything of a higher quality at lower prices and then put £85 million on the Stock Exchange in terms of hire purchase as has been done in the last twenty-four hours.
Bill Smith in Ebbw Vale or at Richard Thomas and Baldwin looks at yesterday's paper and says to himself, "They are selling out this concern". He does not know why, except that somewhere somebody who has put nothing into the concern will be getting something out of it. So the lads at R.T.B.'s say, "Why should I trouble? It must be all right. We can put an extra charge on every ton of steel which I help to produce. They must be certain they are going to sell it, otherwise they would not do what they are doing". The hon. Member for Louth by raising this question has given some of us food for thought, and, indeed. an opportunity of passing out a few observations on what is going on. With regard to shipbuilding, until this year the Scandinavian countries have ordered ships from Britain every year since I was a child. I have looked up the records and, for the first time in British history, I cannot find one ship ordered by Scandinavia this year.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that if he would persuade the trade unions in the shipbuilding industry to deal with various restrictive practices, which are worse in that industry than in any other, we should be building and selling more ships than we have ever done.

Mr. Jones: I am glad the hon. Member tells us that there was a strike in the shipbuilding industry. If the people who own the shipbuilding industry did away with the causes of strikes they would not happen. No one could have been more ready to admit restrictive practices in the trade unions than I have. No one has been taken to task more than I have for talking about their misdeeds, but people who have never picked up a spanner or a hammer should not glibly talk about restrictive practices in the shipbuilding industry and blame all that has happened on to one strike. It is easy for an hon.

Member to jump up and assume that there would not be this problem if someone had not had a demarcation strike in Liverpool or somewhere else. This problem goes much deeper than an old strike in an odd industry.
Reference has been made tonight to India. India is a great customer, and it became a great customer because it was free to expand and to obtain of its own volition a better standard of life. That freedom was given by this party when we were in Government. We take pride in that.
Reference has been made also to the question of trade with Russia. We have heard all this nonsense about not sending out a tractor because the Russians might pinch the manganese steel off a tractor and put it in a tank. All that nonsense has gone because the Russians can make all the steel that they want quicker than we can.
Then there is Eastern Germany. The hon. Member for Louth is not the only person to get around the world. I have been in Germany forty times since the war and behind the Iron Curtain five times in the last three or four years. I saw a youth of 18 in the Stalinstadt Steel Works in control of twenty-eight miles of conveyor belting. Six blast furnaces had been built in nine months. Political and civil prisoners there and everyone else were working, and when I say working I mean working. They work, or else. They have no problems about raw materials, no Stock Exchange and no fiddlers. It is straight from weaver to wearer. I know there is the odd black-sheep, but he does not last long, not so long as in this country. As soon as he is found out he is "got shot of". but as soon as one in this country is found out he is emulated and asked. "How did you do it?" and "How can we do it tomorrow?"
Let us get down to the facts of the situation. There are unlimited raw materials such as coal from Poland and iron ore from Korea. I used to wonder what the Korean War was about, but then I found that 70 per cent. of the iron ore is produced there and they are producing as I have never seen it produced in my life before. The German does not turn a screw on a thread more quickly than the British worker, but at the end of the day he has screwed a few more.


That is the secret. There is not this laissez faire there, nor the attitude, "You have never had it so good" or "It is quite all right". We must accept the blame for this.
Of course, the trade unions have not been as good as they might be, but can we be surprised when they see millions of pounds changing hands in one takeover bid in a minute? How can one expect young folk to go into the factories and work as hard as their grandparents did when they see their grandmother having to pay an extra bob for a medical prescription? These things have an effect on the morale of the British worker. An hon. Member opposite can shake his head, but this is true. We know because we are closer to them. I do not spend all my spare time as welfare organiser of a vast organisation without knowing what I am talking about. I get to know the men's opinions.
My time is getting short and I must come to a close. I suggest to the hon. Member for Louth and all his friends that the next time they go to China, the next time they go to Moscow, to Leipzig or Dresden, the next time they go to Manchester even, they should take with them a good, decent, qualified trade union official and let him loose among the other fellows. Let him go out and advocate better wages and conditions among their competitors. That may sound alarming, but there is something in it.
The textile industry has been referred to. I was the Member for Bolton for five years and when I talked to textile workers about having to go on a three-shift system—

Mr. Arthur Tiley: rose—

Mr. Jones: I am sorry, I have not time to give way. I promised to end my speech in a short time. The hon. Member can ask me a question outside later and I will give him to two o'clock in the morning to do so.
When I talked about a three-shift system they believed the idea was made, but the Japanese textile workers are running around on roller skates with a belly full of rice as a reward. Like those in my industry, they are working round the clock. These things need thinking about. It is not such an easy matter as going to

the gentlemen of the Board of Trade, with all their charm. The President of the Board of Trade cannot will one penny of export trade to any industrialist.
Reference has been made to the lack of knowledge of employees. I happen to be the editor of a magazine in the steel trade, amongst other things. I am constantly telling people, in editorials and otherwise, that there is only one way for us to survive. That is by producing in fair competition a better article of higher quality at a cheaper price and with a better date of delivery. We do this sort of thing, but what do the employers do? The honeymoon is over. The after-war boom is finished. The balloon has been blown up and is about to burst. They will have in their hands what is left when the balloon has burst—a deflated balloon.
I could speak for a long time, but I promised not to do so. It is vitally necessary for the trade unions to take a vast interest in these matters. The leaders of the trade unions should do more in telling their people what is involved. Shop stewards and individual officials in various branches of trade unions should do that. In addition, the employer should tell the employee the state of the order book and why it is as it is.
Employers should tell employees about the state of the order book and the bank book. The employees would be very interested in that and in the state of the expense sheet. If that were done there would he mutual satisfaction at the fact that at long last employee and employer had got together with the common interest of preserving this great nation of ours as we would have it.
It is a great job. Politicians cannot do it. We can walk into the Lobbies, but walking into the Lobbies or even changing the Government will not win an order for one million motor cars. I see directors of steel firms—not my firm, but other firms—riding round in Volkswagens and complaining about trade not being so good. I see business men riding about in American cars, and they talk about trade not being as good as it should be, with the demand for steel beginning to fall by the wayside.
The hon. Member for Louth has done the House and the country a service. I


only hope that he will take the matter further by pressing the Leader of the House to give us more time to debate this problem, the solution to which would be the salvation of our country.

9.31 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I am very glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this valuable debate, which has been initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne). His wide and comprehensive Motion has enabled us to have a far-ranging, discursive and interesting debate. I shall not attempt to answer or state the Government's point of view on the many wide-ranging points which have been made, because I particularly want to refer to that part of my hon. Friend's Motion dealing with the services provided by the Board of Trade for exporting firms. I want to make some comments on the efforts of our exporters in general.
I should like, first, to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) for their very kind and generous references to Board of Trade officials overseas and at home. I am sure that they intended to include in their references the commercial officers in our embassies abroad. They are in the front line of our export drive. I am sure that many of them will read the speeches in today's debate, and what hon. Members have been kind enough to say about them will be much appreciated.
My hon. Friend has said that it is the manufacturer's job to do the exporting. I wholeheartedly agree. The Government cannot possibly do the exporting for private manufacturers. It would probably be a disaster if we attempted to do it. Therefore, we have to draw a fairly strict line in deciding what the range and extent of our export services should be.
Our services are designed to assist manufacturers to do their own job and to do it well. However, there is one task which is essentially the Government's. It is our job to work for the removal of international restrictions on the free flow of trade. We have made considerable progress in the fifteen years since the war, as even the hon. Member for Bolton,

West (Mr. Holt) will be prepared to admit.
I was, therefore, very interested when my hon. Friend the Member for Louth quoted correspondence concerning restrictions on trade with Jamaica, South Africa and Ceylon. I have been able to find out a little more about the subject matter of the complaints and difficulties. In all three cases the countries concerned are having to restrict imports on balance of payments grounds. We can make no quarrel with that. If a country runs into balance of payments difficulties, we believe that it is only reasonable that it should have the opportunity to try to put things right.
All we say is that there should be no discrimination between one exporter and another. If discrimination against British exporters arises, then we take the matter up as vigorously as we can with the Government concerned. However, from a quick reading of the complicated cases which my hon. Friend put to me, I think that there is no discrimination against British exporters in these cases. They are being treated in the same way as exporters in other countries, although we still retain the general 10 per cent. preference on all our goods going into Ceylon.

Mr. C. Osborne: Then we may take it that the restrictions in these three countries are only temporary, and that as soon as the balance of payments problem is over we shall get more quotas to export there.

Mr. Erroll: We hope that with the removal of the balance of payments difficulties they will revert to a greater measure of freedom, although we cannot guarantee that they will do so as quickly as we would wish. It must be remembered that we maintained restrictions on our imports for a number of years on balance of payments grounds and that there were those who thought that we could have lifted them rather more quickly.
The task of the Board of Trade is to provide certain services to help exporters and would-be exporters. We do this, with the help of a world-wide coverage of representatives, from our headquarters in London. Taking together our commercial representatives and the Board of Trade Trade Commissioner Service, we


have about 200 posts overseas which are constantly sending us trade and commercial information which they think is of value to potential British exporters. All this is examined, sorted out and collated in our Export Services Branch at the Board of Trade headquarters in London and goes out both to our regional headquarters in the principal industrial centres of the country and through, the medium of the Export Service Bulletin. People who subscribe to this Bulletin are able to obtain all the information which we have gathered.
Those are general services. We also provide a service for the individual would-be exporter. As soon as we learn what he wishes to sell, we try to help him to decide the market which he would like to try first. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) referred to a number of important markets and industries. Whenever a firm approaches either one of our regional offices or our headquarters in London, we try to discover what sort of product they are making and which product out of their range they wish to sell, and, as a result of the information which we possess in London, we suggest the market which would be most suitable for them.
We also try to put the firms in touch with suitable agents in the country concerned. This is one of our biggest jobs. We do not merely give them a list of names of people from the telephone directory, or anything like that. We provide them with a short list of people or agencies whom we have good reason to believe would prove to be satisfactory.

Mr. Burden: Is my right hon. Friend's Department in close touch with the London buying houses and does he obtain from them lists of the buyers, their arrival times and the commodities which they are buying in this country? If that information could be disseminated through my right hon. Friend's Department, it would be of great value.

Mr. Erroll: I should like to look into that point. I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer on the spur of the moment.
The Export Services Branch is in a position to give information about tariff and import regulations and, not only agents and representatives, but also new export opportunities and many other de-

tails. This service is constantly used by industry on an increasing scale. These are direct services provided by the Board of Trade.
There are, however, a number of other operations which might be called joint ventures between Government and industry. There are, for example, the export councils. The Government give a grant in aid to the Western Hemisphere Exports Council, formerly the Dollar Exports Council. There is an Export Council for Europe and there is the Advisory Council on Middle East Trade. These bodies are mainly composed of leaders from industry and they serve a valuable purpose in focusing attention on the opportunities for British exports to the markets concerned.
Then, we help in arranging for outward trade missions. From time to time, we give financial support to missions organised by national bodies such as the F.B.I. We are always prepared to consider providing further assistance in suitable cases. There are also outward missions which do not receive financial help from the Government. One, organised by the London Chamber of Commerce, went to Poland on 14th February, a few days ago. It will get all the benefit we can give it of our services in London and Poland so that it may spend its time there in the most valuable way.
I must mention particularly the whole series of missions which are being arranged by the Export Council for Europe in conjunction with ourselves. The Council is embarking on a series of visits to Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, Italy, Norway and France. Ten further missions will be carried out in May and June covering other countries in Europe with which the Council is concerned. That will help to show my hon. Friends that we are taking the great opportunities in Europe extremely seriously and we hope that British exporters will take advantage of what the members of the Council learn.
We are arranging, also, for important business visitors to come to this country. Sometimes, we entertain them here, and that is our sole contribution. Sometimes, in suitable cases, we pay their fares from their own homelands, so that they may come over here to see what we are making


in Britain, to meet British organisations and, we hope, to place business with us. Last year, for example, visitors of this sort came from Finland, Mexico, Portugal, Switzerland, Tunisia, Colombia, Guinea, Japan, the Sudan and the United Arab Republic. The scheme, which is an expanding one, has been well received, particularly by exporters in this country and by industrialists. We shall shortly be seeking Parliamentary approval to increase the financial contribution which Her Majesty's Government will be able to make towards these useful visits next year.
I had intended to refer to the possible value of ministerial visits abroad, but in view of the very kind things which several of my hon. Friends have said about my own visits I feel that there is little for me to say about this, except to point out that we in the Board of Trade do not think that we have a monopoly of selling Britain abroad. I try to keep track of where my ministerial colleagues may be going abroad and, when the occasion is suitable, I ask them to put in a word for British exports wherever they may happen to be. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury visited Denmark recently. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, made a useful export promotion visit to Sweden last September, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made a fine address to the Brussels Chamber of Commerce about a fortnight ago.
There is one respect in which I feel that our services can be substantially improved. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) referred to exhibitions and particularly to facilities in Moscow. We have repeatedly pressed the Soviet authorities for permission to arrange a Moscow shop window, but so far they have not seen their way to providing the facilities that we require. However, the Moscow Fair, which is due to start in May, should be a great success. This justifies me, perhaps, in saying a few words to the House about our policy for overseas fairs, as it is a matter in which many people are greatly interested. We have been giving a good deal of thought to this matter at the Board of Trade, particularly with the help of our Exhibitions

Advisory Committee, which consists of businessmen with a wide range of experience in these matters. Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but the real object of a British manufacturer showing his goods at a trade fair overseas is to enable him to sell his goods. But exhibiting at a trade fair is only one aspect of selling, and the firm which decides to exhibit must be prepared to follow up with a steady and consistent sales promotion campaign.
Our trade fairs overseas are organised in several different ways, but the most valuable one for our exporters is the specialised trade fair, of which there is an increasing number in Western Europe and other highly industrialised countries. There is also a growing tendency for trade fairs to be organised abroad, particularly in the newly developing countries, in which the selling aspect gets overshadowed by a sort of international competition in industrial prestige. This can be a very expensive development, with relatively little to show for it afterwards.
Nevertheless, we realise that fairs of this kind, with all the exhibitors from one country grouped together in a single national pavilion, suit the needs of a number of countries, particularly those in the less industrially developed parts of the world. I can assure the House that we have no intention of remaining aloof from occasions of this kind, even if the sales prospects are not always very obviously attractive. The Government have in the past provided assistance for firms wishing to take part in specialised fairs, and we intend to do more. We are also planning to assume larger responsibilities for national pavilions at trade fairs of the type which I have just described.

Mr. C. Osborne: Financial resposibilities?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, financial responsibilities.
We shall not try to go everywhere, but we do intend to make certain that what we do we shall do well. Our belief is, and all the information we get from industry confirms this view, that the specialised trade fair is the one which today offers the best sales prospects. We want to interest firms in these and similar fairs on a long-term basis. While there are many British firms which regularly participate successfully in such fairs, I feel


that a good deal more needs to be done and we want to give firms all the help we can in this direction.
Our usual method of providing assistance is to obtain space at the fair and relet it to the firms in each industry willing to participate. In this way, we can get an effective British display, and we can be fairly precise about the extent of our financial commitment. We can also provide additional services in kind for such a group display. When an overseas fair is being organised on the basis of national pavilions, we are prepared to put up a Government pavilion and let off the space at reduced rates to British firms willing to exhibit. Individual firms and industries are thus saved a good deal of work and expense.
I want to mention one other category of fair, and this is an important point—the all-British fair overseas. Such a fair can have a great impact on a market, such as the one which was so successful in New York last year. This fair and the one in Moscow have both been organised by private enterprise organisations, but they do depend on really massive support from industry. There is a limit to the number of fairs which industry can man up and pay for, and I think that we shall be wise to continue on the present basis, which, broadly speaking, results in one such fair a year being held in markets where we want to make a special effort.
There are also—and this is another important aspect—the so-called "British Weeks", which, incidentally, usually last for more than a week, but which are events which can be very useful in bringing our products, particularly consumer goods, to the notice of the buying public. We already give some assistance to these events, but we have decided that we should do more to help to meet these needs.
So the House will see that exhibiting British goods abroad really comes under four separate headings. There are the specialised fair, the national fair, the British fair and the British Week. We plan to do more in all these fields, and this will cost more money, but we are satisfied that it will be money well spent. In 1956–57 our total expenditure was £68,000. In the current year, with Supplementaries, it will be no less than £333,000, but we still do not feel this

is enough and, therefore, proposals will shortly be laid before Parliament seeking to increase next year's provision by about £200,000, making a total of no less than £530,000.

Mr. C. Osborne: Thank you very much.

Mr. Erroll: If we find that there are justifiable demands which even with a Vote of that size we cannot meet I can assure hon. Members we shall have no hesitation in coming to the House and asking for more.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask just one more question? These four classes of fairs are fairs for a temporary period. Is there any hope of our having a permanent establishment where the exhibitors could have their representatives taking orders straight on the spot throughout the year? Would my hon. Friend think about that?

Mr. Erroll: Certainly we can think about it, but I would say that industry has not shown very much desire for that type of permanent trade centre. There has been one running in Mexico City for some time. The real difficulty is to keep it manned up and looking fresh. That is a very practical difficulty, because one has to have a person standing by the exhibits for many days at a time with no real work to do. However, we would not rule that out if there were any general demand for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth talked about the importance of industry learning to sell, and he said one trouble was that the Board of Trade was not selling itself and was not selling its services. We do not mind having criticism, but I would point out to him that we are doing our very best to sell the services we offer to exporters. We have made considerable efforts during the last year.
My ministerial colleague's, if I may start with them, have helped me a great deal in this way—and the President of the Board of Trade, also, of course—by making speeches in many different parts of the country on the importance of exports and on the services which the Board of Trade can provide. We have not limited this selling effort to Board of Trade Ministers. In fact, Ministers have made no fewer than 50 speeches in provincial centres.
That is all very well for all those people Who go to listen to ministerial speeches or who read them. What about the firms who are immune to that type of appeal? We have started a direct mail campaign of several hundred letters a week to all the firms in the country employing 25 or more people in manufacture. This means that about 30,000 circular letters will he sent out over a period of nine months pointing out the existence of the Board of Trade export services and inviting those interested to fill in a reply-paid card. The response to this has been out of all proportion to what is normally expected in a circular letter campaign of this sort.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Will the Board of Trade tell those firms something about the export credit facilities about which little is known and on which some complaints are made?

Mr. Erroll: Certainly. About 32 per cent. is the rate of replies, and every firm which replies is sent a copy of the booklet, "British Government Services for Exporters", which includes a section on export credit guarantees.
Every reply-paid card is followed up as quickly as possible by a specialised export officer from the regional headquarters. If he finds that there are export problems with which he cannot deal because they are too intricate or specialised he immediately notifies his opposite number in the local office of the E.C.G.D. who goes along and deals with that complicated subject. The direct mail campaign is, I suggest, being a very distinct success in bringing to the notice of every potential exporter in the country what the Board of Trade can offer in the way of export services.
We have a great range of leaflets and pamphlets which are distributed on a wide scale. There is the "British Government Services for Exporters", of which we have distributed nearly 120,000 copies since the first printing. There is the pamphlet, "Going Abroad on Business", of which 150,000 copies are distributed by passport offices, banks and travel agencies and 100,000 more are being printed. These are free publications. There is an excellent wall map of the world entitled, "Information for the

British Exporter", of which a second edition of 20,000 copies have been distributed and 10,000 more are being printed to meet requirements. This is also free.
There is "Help for the British Exporter in Canada and the United States", which is being distributed on our behalf by B.O.A.C. and the Cunard Steamship Line at the rate of 50,000 copies a year. We also run a series of "Hints to Business Men", covering about one hundred countries and detailing business conditions in the countries that the businessman intends to visit. There is also a pamphlet describing how trade fairs help exports.
This wide range of pamphlets and literature enable those who are prepared to listen and have a go to find out all they need to know. We are doing our best to encourage export mindedness. We have taken various steps recently to make clear our appreciation of those who make outstanding contributions to our export trade. Our day-to-day work in our various offices is on a very considerable scale. The Export Services Branch, for example, deals with 1,000 inquiries a day. In addition, large numbers of firms are visited by our regional export officers and regional representatives of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. At least 3,000 personal calls or visits are made and received each month.
I shall try to answer the question whether we could do more. We are proud of what we are doing, but we are always glad to receive constructive criticisms because we want to improve the services that we provide. We have met an enthusiastic response from the F.B.I., the N.U.M. and from chambers of commerce which are forming export groups and clubs all over the country.
Individual industries have also set up export groups and committees. The trade union movement also plays an active part in the campaign. It has given support to the Export Council for Europe and the Western Hemisphere Exports Council, and through the N.P.A.C.I. and the Regional Boards for Industry and their district committees. It has contributed to the valuable discussions on matters affecting exports.
The Motion before the House is a long one, but the operative part, or "punch-line", is clear and unequivocal. It says:
That this House…urges Her Majesty's Government to make better known to exporting firms the facilities offered by the Board of Trade…
I have tried to tell the House what some of these services are and what we are doing to make them better known. The Government, without committing themselves perhaps to the exact wording of the Preamble, are glad to accept the terms of the Motion and they appreciate the continuing interest that hon. Members take in the facilities provided by the Board of Trade.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Unfortunately, the time available to me has passed and I am unable to speak to the Motion on National Parks in my name:
[That this House, while appreciating the progress made in the last eleven years in connection with National Parks, is of the opinion that time has shown the need for amendment of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, in a number of respects, particularly in regard to the financial arrangements for National Parks and the further strengthening of the Act against the forces which tend to destroy or impair them; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce amending legislation accordingly.]
But I would seek your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and say that it is a very important subject.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member on the Motion before the House

and National Parks are out of order on that Motion.

9.59 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In the remaining minute or so I should like to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, and his Department on all that has been done on the tactical level. My right hon. Friend's explanation of the Department's contribution on that level was absolutely first class, but I think that it is on the higher strategic level that the Government can make a further, great contribution. As tax collectors and those who have to do the taxation, they can help medium-sized firms to enter the export market. A concession on tax is a matter which should be taken into account by my right hon. Friend and his Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, conscious of this country's need to export at least 30 per cent. of all it manufactures in order to pay for the 50 per cent. of the food and nearly 100 per cent. of the raw material requirements which it must import, and recognising this country's inability to compel the foreigner to buy British when cheaper or better articles are offered and being aware that labour costs in this country are high because nine-tenths of the world lives at one-fifth of our standard, urges Her Majesty's Government to make better known to exporting firms the facilities offered by the Board of Trade as an additional help but not as a substitute for the higher quality at lower price goods needed to secure the necessary bigger share of world exports if mass unemployment and real hunger in this country are to be avoided.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(POWER FOR THE TREASURY TO BORROW.)

Question again proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.0 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): rose—

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I think it would he helpful if we cleared up one matter before the Financial Secretary to the Treasury continues his speech. You will recall that at our last sitting on this Bill a drafting error was discovered, and the Leader of the House told us in the course of his Business statement that the Government proposed to take a certain course in order to put the Bill right. Some of my hon. Friends and myself would like to query the procedure which is proposed to be adopted. What I should like your guidance on is whether it is appropriate to do that before we part with the Clause or whether the appropriate time to consider that matter would be when we come to the Third Reading of the Bill, which I understand is the stage at which the Amendment is proposed to be made by the Government.

The Chairman: I understand that the Amendment is to be moved in the House, and, of course, that cannot be done until the Committee proceedings are concluded and the House resumes.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. I fully understand your Ruling, and, if I may say so with respect, anticipated that that would be the Ruling you would give. But there is one point which I think might be worth mentioning at this stage. If we concede that we cannot alter the Clause in Committee, then it follows that we pass the Clause in Committee as it is—or defeat it altogether. If we defeat it altogether, that is another matter.
However, assuming that the Clause is ultimately, either after a Division or

without one, accepted by the Committee, it becomes part of the Bill and is then included in the Third Reading with the authority of the House itself. It is no longer then a question of any error made anywhere else. If the Committee adopts the Clause, it will adopt it with its eyes open and knowing what it is doing. It may then be very difficult to argue at a later stage that what is involved in any Amendment then about the admitted error in the Clause can be purely verbal.
Unless the matter can be cleared up now, I think Mr. Speaker might have considerable difficulty in allowing the so-called verbal Amendment of which some anticipation was offered in discussions yesterday. Therefore, I should like to know whether there is any possible method of dealing with the matter now, submitting to you that if there is no such method it may be impossible to deal with it later.

The Chairman: We are now on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". After that Question is put, we cannot amend the Clause. I quoted a Ruling on the subject the other night. It is a very old Ruling, and can be found on page 561 of Erskine May. Therefore, I cannot now accept any Amendment to this Clause. What happens on the Third Reading is not, of course, a matter for me.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. This places the Committee in very great difficulty indeed. We are being asked to pass a Clause which we know to be inaccurate, and we have no guarantee about what will take place on Third Reading.
Mr. Speaker might not accept the verbal Amendment. He may have no power to do so. And even if he accepts it the House might reject it. We have, therefore, no guarantee as to what might happen on Third Reading. We are looking into the future. Meanwhile, we are asked to pass a Clause that we know to be inaccurate, and about which we have no guarantee in the future. I submit that this places the Committee in great difficulty in knowing what course to pursue.

The Chairman: The Question before the Committee is "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". We are not exactly passing the Clause. As I have pointed out, I cannot accept an Amendment at this stage.

Sir E. Boyle: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I may be able to allay some of the anxieties of hon. Members. All that is happening on this occasion is that I give notice now to the Committee, as, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did the other day, that I shall be moving a verbal Amendment to Clause 2 at a later stage—that is to say, just after Mr. Speaker has said "Consolidated Fund Bill—Third Reading".
I cannot see that this is very different from the situation that constantly arises when a senior or junior Member of the Government gives notice that he will move an Amendment at a later stage of a Bill. The only difference in this case is that we are in a situation where, as will emerge at the time, it is perfectly proper for an Amendment to be moved, not in the ordinary way on Report stage, but when Mr. Speaker has said, "Consolidated Fund Bill—Third Reading".
I give an assurance that, if we proceed with our business of considering whether Clauses 2 and 3 should stand part of the Bill, I shall move such an Amendment. The House will be perfectly free to accept or reject that Amendment. There will be no question of the House not being able to express a view.
In these circumstances, it would be proper to continue discussion on Clause 2, in exactly the same way as constantly happens when a Minister states that he will move an Amendment at a later stage of a Bill.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury purports to give us an assurance that he will move an Amendment, but he cannot give us an assurance that it will be accepted. If we allow this Clause to pass, we pass something which is inaccurate or uncorrected.
On 20th February, you quoted the following words from Erskine May:
The enacting words of the bill are not open to amendment.

There is no qualification in that concerning any particular stage of the Bill, or any particular situation. It says that the words of the Bill are not open to amendment. We must take it, therefore, that they are not open to amendment either in Committee or on Third Reading.

The Chairman: We are not on the enacting words of the Bill at the moment.

Mr. Swingler: In that case, Sir Gordon, are you saying now that the Clause is amendable? We want to have your Ruling about whether the assurance given by the Financial Secretary means anything or not.
The Financial Secretary admits that there is a mistake in the Clause, but asks the Committee to pass the Clause on the assurance that this mistake will be removed later on. But, according to the Rulings we have been given so far, that is not possible, because it is not possible to amend this kind of Bill at any stage. Are you now saying that it is possible to amend the Clause at some stage, and that there is, therefore, some qualification involved? Although apparently, you have maintained up to now that the Clauses of the Bill are not amendable in Committee, are you now ruling that they are amendable at some later stage of the Bill? I am asking, Sir Gordon, if you will give a ruling for our guidance as to what our attitude should be to the Clause standing part of the Bill, although we know there is an error in it.

Mr. S. Silverman: This is on the same point of order, and it might be convenient to rule on all of these together. The point I put originally was that, even on the assumption that the original error could be regarded as the kind of error which could be corrected by a verbal Amendment, it will cease to be such once the Committee has adopted the Clause in this form.
The Financial Secretary, in a very interesting argument, seeks to get out of the difficulty by saying that there is no difference between the course he is proposing and the course the Minister very often takes when he says to a Committee, "Give me the Clause as it stands and I undertake to introduce an Amendment at a later stage." With great respect, I submit that there is all the difference in the world between what the Financial


Secretary is proposing to do and the kind of thing he has in mind.
Standing Order No. 53 makes it clear beyond peradventure that the only kind of Amendment in order on Third Reading is a purely verbal Amendment. By "purely verbal" is meant something which is the antithesis of a substantial Amendment.
If the Committee decides now to pass a Clause which has the word "sums" and does that knowing that it is there, then, when it comes to Third Reading, any argument addressed to Mr. Speaker designed to show that the verbal Amendment promised by the Financial Secretary is in order under Standing Order No. 53 becomes completely unarguable. Nobody in his sense, and no Member of this Committee, would argue that it is one and the same thing and purely a drafting change if the Committee decides to give to the Government "sums of money" and then the House is invited to change that into one "sum of money". To argue that it makes no difference, except a drafting difference, whether the House of Commons gives to the Government one sum or several sums, is manifest nonsense.
I have given Mr. Speaker notice that if any such Amendment is intended I shall invite him to rule that it is out of order. There is one way and one way only in which to deal with this matter, and that is to withdraw the Clause, or withdraw the Bill, and bring in another one. If one could amend it now that would be convenient. Everyone realises the inconvenience of any other course. However, if it is as you say, Sir Gordon—and, for my part, I accept that it cannot be amended now, although we all know it to be wrong and wish to amend it—it will be quite impossible to amend it, as the Financial Secretary suggests, on Third Reading, because at that stage, and I should have thought at all stages, it becomes sheer nonsense to argue that the change proposed is purely verbal and not substantial.

The Chairman: The hon. Member raises a number of points, but they are not really points of order for me. I cannot deal with what would happen on Third Reading. The position that we

are placed in is that we have before us the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and, having it before us, we cannot amend the Clause.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: On a point of order. You have put your finger on the precise difficulty in which the Committee finds itself, Sir Gordon. It is agreed that the Government are to +try to move a verbal Amendment on Third Reading. No one can say, and I submit that you least of all can say, whether Mr. Speaker will or will not accept such an Amendment. There must obviously be some room for argument and discussion as to whether it comes within Standing Order No. 53. Therefore, no one can say in advance whether Mr. Speaker will allow this Amendment. For that reason alone this is the difficulty which we are in. It would have been a better procedure if the Government had withdrawn the Bill and brought it in afresh in its proper form, when it could have gone through quite smoothly, probably in no greater time than it will take now to get the Bill.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member realises that whether the Government withdraw the Bill is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Further to that point of order. This is a point of order because it is a matter of procedure. We seem to be living in a looking-glass world with this Bill. When a normal Bill is before us, we are able to amend it in Committee, but not on Third Reading. We are all familiar with that situation. We understand that for some reason we cannot amend this Bill in Committee by any means—

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is under a misapprehension. It is Clause 1 which we cannot amend, and we cannot amend Clause 2 because we are now on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and on any other Bill the same rule would apply.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Sir Gordon? I suppose that your Ruling means that we can debate the subject matter contained in Clause


2, but it is very difficult, when the Clause is acknowledged on all sides as being in error, wrongly drafted, to do that when the Government say that, in order to be operable, Clause 2 must be amended at a later stage.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not raising a point of order. Of course he can debate Clause 2.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. It might be helpful to hon. Members, who may not appreciate a possible interpretation of what they say, if I say that Mr. Speaker made it clear in his Ruling yesterday that responsibility for drafting the Bill is that of the Public Bill Office, working on his behalf, fulfilling a duty which is imposed on him.
The origins of that are mentioned on the bottom of page 743 of the Sixteenth Edition of Erskine May simply by reference, and the reference is to the Report of the Select Committee on Public Moneys, 1857. On page 27 of that Report the following occurs:
The Speaker of the House of Commons is considered to represent the House in all matters of finance brought before it, and to control all proceedings in reference thereto. As the session proceeds he takes care that any Bill for giving ways and means to the Treasury is kept within the amount of the votes in supply previously granted; and at the close of the session he checks the final balance between the full amount of the votes in supply, including the sum required to cover the interest of Exchequer Supply Bills, and the ways and means already granted, and limits the final grant of ways and means in the Appropriation Act to that amount. In short the Speaker exercises direct control over all the financial forms of the House of Commons.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. We are on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and I do not relate his observations to that Motion.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I was on a point of order. I was saying that the comments now being made, although I am sure they are not so intended, nevertheless could possbily be interpreted as an unintentional criticism of the Public Bill Office, and therefore of Mr. Speaker. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Committee.
My point of order is simply this. Would you not agree, Sir Gordon, that the criticism of the means by which we

amend, if we are later going to do so, is not a criticism which in the ordinary way we are entitled to make of Government action, but would inevitably involve the Chair itself? I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to do that. If Mr. Speaker had indicated—

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is not raising a point of order.

Mr. J. T. Price: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) a moment ago suggested that these proceedings might he likened to the looking-glass world. If he is quoting Lewis Carroll, I think that a more correct description would be the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. However, I submit for your judgment that to quote Erskine May in the way it has been quoted is not equivalent to quoting from Holy Writ or the Koran. I challenge the quotation from Erskine May, for this reason.

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member challenging the Ruling that after the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" has been proposed we cannot make an Amendment?

Mr. Price: Yes, for this reason, that obviously this was a codification of the practice of the House.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have given a Ruling on that and I cannot discuss it.

Mr. Price: I come to my second point. Dealing with the matter in a practical commonsense way, we are told that we cannot amend in Committee a defective Clause which has been brought to the attention of the Committee. I submit that, if instead of there being a textual defect in the phrasing of the Clause, the figures had been wrong and instead of £42 million it was £420 million, it would be wrong for this Committee to pass the Clause. If the figures were wrong to the extent of a large sum of money, it would be wrong to do so. Therefore, it makes nonsense of this Ruling.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but it is quite simple. Once the Question has been proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we cannot make an Amendment. If hon.


Members think that the Clause should not stand part of the Bill, their remedy is to vote against it. Obviously we cannot have an Amendment.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The Committee's difficulty is this. We are being asked to accept the Clause as it were on tick. In view of the subject matter of the Clause, that is perhaps appropriate enough, but we are being asked to accept a Clause which we know is defective on the promissory note that it will get—

The Chairman: I am sorry. That is not a point of order. That is an argument for the Government, not a point of order for me.

Mr. Stewart: With respect, Sir Gordon, you called me.

The Chairman: I thought the hon. Member wanted to raise a point of order.

Mr. S. Silverman: Sir Gordon, I am not sure whether I heard you correctly a few minutes ago. I think I heard you say that the reason why we cannot put the Clause right now by Amendment is that the time has passed for that; that the real reason that we cannot do it is because we have parted with the Clause to the extent that we are now on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If that is what you intended us to understand, does it involve this, that the Clause could have been amended if only the correct Amendment had been put down before we reached the present stage? If that is so, it increases the difficulty of the Committee tremendously, because if it were the fact that the Government could, by putting down the right Amendment, have corrected the Clause in Committee, their case for persuading Mr. Speaker tomorrow to allow them to amend it on Third Reading on the ground that it is purely verbal becomes utterly and completely hopeless. I hope we shall not proceed on a false basis. The question I put to you is this: is it the case that if we had not yet reached the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", the Government, at the right time would have put down an Amendment to correct this error but that they have missed that opportunity?
It is not a question of criticising anybody—neither you, Sir Gordon,

nor Mr. Speaker, nor the Officers of the House, nor the printing department nor anybody else. The question is that because of something which has happened we are faced with a situation which does not express what the Committee, the House and the Government want to do. We are confronted with the practical difficulty of how to put that right. I suggest that there is only one way in which it can be put right, if what you have said is correct and I have understood it correctly; that this could have been amended by proper notice and by a proper Amendment on the Order Paper, but that we are now precluded from doing it only because the Government missed that opportunity and now want to put it right by stretching and twisting the Standing Orders and the long established practices of the House.

The Chairman: I cannot give a Ruling on something that might have happened and has not happened.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. With respect, Sir Gordon, I do not think you answered the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Because that point has not been answered, it is difficult for us to proceed. If we do not get an answer to the question whether the Government could have conducted business differently, that is to say, putting down their verbal Amendment as they call it prior to the Motion now before the Committee, all the other complications mentioned by my hon. Friend would arise.
The further complication that he mentioned is that if we leave the matter now and do not remedy the deficiency of the Government in not having put down an Amendment before this Clause was discussed, we shall get into a greater difficulty later on. It will then become a substantive Amendment which the Government have proposed. My hon. Friend suggested—and asked for your guidance on the point—how we could avoid a much greater difficulty which would arise if later the Government proposed an Amendment which ceased to be a verbal Amendment at all. In the discussion on business yesterday the Leader of the House said:
I really cannot make any further statement on the matter…except that I have ascertained


that it will be in order to make a verbal Amendment of this character on Third Reading."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 21st February, 1961 Vol. 635, c. 319]
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has, I think, convinced the Committee that if such an Amendment were moved after this Clause is passed it would not be a verbal Amendment. Therefore, we shall be in a difficult situation and the guidance given yesterday by the Leader of the House is incorrect.
We are trying to escape from a situation which will arise if we go ahead with this procedure. In response to the different points of order which have been raised, Sir Gordon, you have said that we are now discussing the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and, therefore, you have not answered the points of order. If you accept the points of order, surely you should be able to give us guidance to avoid difficulties later on.

The Chairman: It is not for me to give a Ruling on what the Government might have done but have not done. All I am concerned with is to give a Ruling on the present situation.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. You say that you cannot give a Ruling on what the Government might have done. On the other hand, you say now that the reason that we cannot amend this Clause is that we are now on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Do I now understand from you that it would be in order now to put down Amendments to Clause 3 which we have not yet reached?

The Chairman: It would be in order to put down Amendments to Clause 3.

Sir E. Boyle: May I say that the point put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is less formidable that he suggested. We are now concerned with the Motion "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill". Surely I am right in saying that in the case of any Committee stage it is open to any hon. Member, during discussion of the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", to draw attention to any drafting in that Clause that he may suggest makes the Clause defective. That is not a point which only arises tonight. It is a point

which could perfectly well be raised by any hon. Member on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".
In those circumstances, I can imagine that a Minister might say "I will put down an appropriate Amendment at a later stage of the Bill". That is exactly the situation in which we now find ourselves. Attention has been drawn by hon. Members opposite to defective drafting. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I myself have given notice that we will put down an appropriate Amendment at a later stage of the Bill. I submit yin those circumstances that there is nothing contrary to the procedure of the House in continuing discussion of the Motion on which we are now engaged.

Mr. M. Stewart: The procedure that the hon. Gentleman suggests can work in the circumstances that he describes because there is normally a Report stage during which the Minister can redeem his promise and move any Amendments. But our difficulty here is that we have only the Third Reading, and the scope of Amendments that can be moved on Third Reading is very narrow. We are all in doubt whether the kind of Amendments to which the Minister is referring could be moved on Third Reading. Normally when a Minister promises in Committee to introduce an Amendment at a later stage, he is thinking of the Report stage and he is promising something that the whole Committee knows is within his powers. At the moment, the hon. Gentleman is promising something that neither he nor we know will be in his power to fulfil.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. On the point that the Financial Secretary made, I submit to you, Sir Gordon, that it does not at all meet the point that I raised, because on Third Reading one cannot move any Amendment of substance, any Amendment which makes any change. I do not want to delay the Committee now, but I have here, and will submit to Mr. Speaker in due course if we get so far, the only authority for this, the only other occasion in the twentieth century or earlier—

The Chairman: That may be an argument for voting against the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but it is not a point of order for me now.

Mr. Silverman: I am submitting that it is part of the general point of order with which you are concerned, Sir Gordon.

The Chairman: It is an argument against the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Silverman: I am only drawing to your attention, Sir Gordon, the fallacy in the argument which the Financial Secretary addressed to the Committee. That is all I am doing.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Silverman: The general point of order with which we are concerned is how to deal with an impossible and anomalous situation with which we are faced, and in the course of asking for your guidance a number of hon. Members have drawn the point to your attention. The last point that was drawn to your attention, Sir Gordon, was submitted by the Financial Secretary, and I should like to point out to you—not to him, because I cannot discuss it with him now—that that was completely fallacious. The only case in which an Amendment on Third Reading has been dealt with shows—

The Chairman: That may be a proper matter to raise on the Third Reading, but we cannot raise it now.

Mr. Silverman: I am dealing with the kind of Amendment that can be admitted later. The Financial Secretary has asked us not to persist with our present objections because he is going to do something at a later stage.
What I am pointing out is that part of that argument is that it cannot be done at a later stage because the Amendments which could be moved at a later stage are in their nature so limited and trivial that the only case on record does not even tell us what the Amendments were. It has to be completely unsubstantial and nothing to do with any meaning at all. It has to be merely a correction of some thoroughly mechanical thing, such as words or lines in the wrong order. Anything which involves substance cannot be dealt with by amendment on Third Reading. Therefore, we have to deal with the situation now if we are to deal with it at all.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Do I understand your Ruling so far, Sir Gordon, to be that there is an error and it is understood on both sides that that error might have been dealt with earlier but that that period has now passed and that error cannot be dealt with on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?" It might be that it can be dealt with later and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is arguing that it cannot be dealt with legitimately. I suggest that whether his argument is sound or unsound, now is not the time to argue that point. The opportunity for dealing with the error up to this stage has passed and, unless we want deliberately to delay the Bill—and I know that is not what the hon. Member wants—if we want to get out of the dilemma, or at any rate try to get out of it, let us get to the next stage when at any rate the argument of the hon. Member will be in order. I think we ought to deal with the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." This is not the time to deal with the error. We should get to the point where by argument and judgment of the Chair we can decide whether the point has any substance.

The Chairman: The hon. Member's argument is perfectly correct. The position now is—and I have given this Ruling several times—that at this stage we cannot amend this Clause.

Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon, I think you will agree that some of the trouble has arisen from a mistaken impression in the Committee arising out of one of the Rulings you gave the other night, that is to say, the impression was spread in the Committee that this Bill was unamendable in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), for example, said to the Leader of the House yesterday:
I refer to the fact that the Chairman of Ways and Means had given what appeared to be a definite Ruling that the Bill could not be amended in any way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 317.]
That was the impression my hon. Friend gained from your Ruling, that it was impossible to amend this Bill in Committee. As I understand the Rulings you have given tonight, you have ruled that Clause 1 was unamendable on the basis of the quotation you made from Erskine May, but that the Clause with


which we are now dealing would be amendable in Committee as you have also ruled that Clause 3 is one which could be subject to amendment in Committee. That is how I understand your Rulings.
I want to ask this question of you, Sir Gordon. If the Government agreed to withdraw this Bill and to have it reintroduced and discussed again in Committee, is it your Ruling that Clause 2, with which we are dealing, would be amendable in Committee? Clause 1 on which you ruled the other night is not, we understand, amendable for the reasons you gave from Erskine May, but this Clause is amendable and could obviously be amended by the simple process of the Government withdrawing the Bill and reintroducing it in correct form.

The Chairman: That is purely hypothetical. I cannot give a Ruling on a hypothetical case of the Government withdrawing the Bill.

Mr. Swingler: Would you give us a Ruling? Is Clause 2 of a Bill of this kind, a special Consolidated Fund Bill. normally amendable in Committee? That is not a hypothetical question and it is quite clear. Is this Clause amendable in the ordinary way?

The Chairman: Clause 2 is amendable in the ordinary way, but I cannot accept the Amendment now.

Mr. John Diamond: On a point of order.

Mr. Martin McLaren: May I rise to put a very short point, and one which, I believe, to be a new point, which may help the Committee in the difficulty in which it finds itself in deciding whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill? The difficulty arises from the word "sums" in line 25, whether it should be plural or singular. I do not think that greatly matters because we have been given a great deal of help in the Interpretation Act, 1889.

The Chairman: This is an argument, not a point of order.

Mr. McLaren: I did not rise to a point of order, Sir Gordon. I was one of the few who did not. I addressed myself to the question whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Diamond: On a point of order. I am grateful to you, Sir Gordon, for having allowed me to catch your eye on this fourteenth attempt. We are much indebted to you for having explained carefully to the Committee that the misunderstanding which arose on a previous occasion, when we thought the Ruling of the Chair was that this Clause was not amendable—indeed, that the whole Bill was not amendable—was a misunderstanding, for which we offer our abject apologies. In fact, you have now explained that the sole reason why we cannot amend the Clause is the usual and well-established reason that the Question having been proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we have passed the point of time at which an Amendment is acceptable by the Chair.
As one of those who are anxious that the House should not seem to be incapable of controlling its affairs and appear to act in a most foolish way because it does not understand its powers aright, may I suggest that, in fact, this Clause should never have been called, that you should not have proposed the Question That the Clause stand part of the Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I hope that I shall have the opportunity of reminding you, Sir Gordon, of the well-established practice of the Chair that, having proposed a Question, any Question, and having, as a result, an argument offered on that Question and realising that the Question should not have been proposed, that you exercise the authority and discretion which are undoubtedly yours—I am not referring to the power of the Government to withdraw the Clause, which is not a matter for you, but to your own well-established discretion—having satisfied yourself on the argument put forward on a particular Question that the Question should not have been proposed, you will avail yourself of the opportunity to withdraw the Question because it has now been made clear—

The Chairman: Order. I have proposed the Question. I think it perfectly proper to do so, and I cannot now debate that decision.

Mr. Diamond: I want to conclude with the main reason why it seems best to reconsider the view as to whether the Question should have been proposed.

Mr. McLaren: Before that last point of order I was in the middle of referring to the Interpretation Act, 1889. The rubric to Section 1 reads:
Rules as to gender and number.
The Section states:
In this Act and in every Act passed after the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears…words in the singular shall include the plural, and words in the plural shall include the singular.
I ask the Committee to consider the significance of those last words.

Mr. K. Robinson: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) on a point of order? [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] In that case, may I remind you, Sir Gordon, that the Financial Secretary has the Floor of the House, which position he took up at about a quarter to Seven tonight?

The Chairman: I forgot that, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me in the circumstances.

10.45 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: At a quarter to Seven I was, as may be within the recollection of some hon. Members, endeavouring to answer some of the points raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) when we began to discuss the Clause at One o'clock a few mornings ago.
The hon. Member asked why the Treasury proposes to borrow from the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland. It is some time since the Committee has debated this Clause of a Consolidated Fund Bill. Therefore, it may be of interest to hon. Members if I explain the position regarding the Bank of Scotland. There are two accounts of Her Majesty's Exchequer, constituting the Consolidated Fund, which are kept respectively with the Bank of England in London and the Bank of Ireland in Belfast. I am trying to continue the educative process which the Leader of the Opposition commended the other night.
The Irish account is a relic of former days—it is a relic of the period following the Act of Union—but still receives the proceeds of Imperial taxation collected in Northern Ireland and meets the costs of the service of that part of the National Debt which is registered

at Belfast. Any balance not required for debt services is remitted to the Paymaster-General in London and is used to meet part of the cost of general supply services.
From time to time it may be necessary for the Exchequer for short periods to borrow on overdraft from its bankers, but the Bank of England Act, 1819, prohibits the Bank from making such advances
without the express and distinct authority of Parliament for that purpose first had and obtained".
Clause 2 (1) of Consolidated Fund Bills seeks that authority.
Quite a number of hon. Members asked whether the Treasury might borrow from Scottish banks and whether the reference to "person" in the Clause would include such banks. Since there is no statutory restriction on borrowing from Scottish banks as there is in the case of the Bank of England, the Treasury may borrow from those banks, and they do hold various Government securities. Since there is no separate Exchequer account in Scotland with a Scottish bank, there is no question of an overdraft being required. The reason is that payments in Scotland for a long while have been effected through the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remem-brancer in Edinburgh, an officer who is not often mentioned in our debates, but to whom I am glad to refer tonight, whose banking account is kept for a year at a time by each of the main Scottish banks in turn.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Financial Secretary mention the Birmingham Municipal Bank? Is it the Government's intention to borrow from that Bank?

Sir E. Boyle: There is no statutory restriction in the case of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, though whether it is involved is not a question I can answer without notice.

Mr. Manuel: Could the phrase "from any person" be read as meaning "from any bank anywhere"?

Sir E. Boyle: The point is that there is no statutory restriction on borrowing from Scottish banks, or indeed from any other banks, as there is in the case of the Bank of England. There is a statutory restriction in the case of the Bank of England. That is the difference.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Does that include the Cooperative Wholesale Society Bank?

Sir E. Boyle: I will not add to what I have said. I have dealt with the statutory restriction which exists. There is no such statutory restriction in the case of other banks.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North also asked why subsection (4) provides for any money borrowed under the Bill to be available
in any manner in which such Fund is available.
The hon. Member complained of the drafting of subsection (4). The Exchequer account is an ordinary banking account into which all receipts of government are paid, unless Parliament otherwise directs. These receipts constitute one single Consolidated Fund. From this one single account all Government payments are made in the first instance. It is essential for the economic management of the Exchequer month by month that all receipts, including those arising from borrowing under the authority of this Bill, shall be available to meet any payments as they may accrue from day to day. The simplest way I can put it is to say that while the drafting of the subsection may appear clumsy it is a sign that we do not admit the principle of hypothecated taxation. All money is paid into the Consolidated Fund.
There is only one other point with which I shall trouble the Committee. I was asked about the words
it is provided that the Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury bills or otherwise.
The simplest answer concerning the meaning of "or otherwise" is that the Treasury may always borrow by extending and enlarging the National Debt. That is the most obvious example. I hope that with those explanations of the Clause—and I welcome the opportunity after this long while to debate it—the Committee may now agree that we should pass the Clause. Then, we can come on to the next Clause.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I have no wish to take up the time of the Committee. I congratulate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on

having done his homework. He needed to do it, because he told me on Monday night that the Consolidated Fund was not one to which "one can actually point." It is true that it is two, apparently one in the Bank of England and the other in the Bank of Ireland, not to mention the sort of fluctuating account that runs round the Scottish banks.
The Bank of Ireland has been mentioned for a long time. It is a bank in Eire. I am a little puzzled why we go on having an account there in respect of matters in Northern Ireland. I am still more puzzled why the Bank of Scotland has been left out. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should reconsider the practice. It is a long time since the Bank of Scotland, which was at the time the Tory bank, opened its coffers to the gentleman whom nowadays we usually call the Young Pretender and handed to him on his way through Edinburgh on his journey to England the whole proceeds of the gold and what-not that was there. I suppose that at that time that penalty was put upon the bank.
If the hon. Gentleman prefers it, he might at least put in one Scots bank. If he is ashamed of the old bank—the Tory bank—he can always put in the
Royal Bank of Scotland, sometimes called the New Bank and sometimes the Whig Bank. Why the Scottish banks should all be left out when half a dozen of them are engaged one after another, I do not know.
I have said what I want to say on this weighty matter, but it is strange the things we keep going in this country and the use and the mention of the Bank of Ireland and the complete silence about the Queen's Remembrancer. I forget the rest of his name, but I know him because he sends me warrants for repayment of Income Tax when I have overpaid it. Why he and these banks are left out altogether, only those who practised this mystery for so long as to be blind to its absurdity are competent to tell us.

Mr. Bruce Milan: I should like to raise a number of points on the Clause, and I hope that we will get explanations from the Financial


Secretary. My first point concerns subsection (2), at the end of which appears the statement that
section six of the Treasury Bills Act, 1877…shall not apply with respect to those bills",
"those bills" being Treasury bills.
I am puzzled why Section 6 of the Treasury Bills Act, 1877, should not apply to the Consolidated Fund Bill. Perhaps I might be allowed to make a quotation from Section 6 of the 1877 Act. I shall read the first part of it. The first sentence states:
Where in any financial year any Exchequer bills or Treasury bills are or are about to be paid off, the Treasury may, during that financial year, for the purpose of paying off, or of replacing the amount expended (otherwise than out of the new Sinking Fund) in paying off the principal money of such bills, OT of any of them, raise a sum not exceeding the amount of such principal money by the issue of Treasury bills or of Exchequer bills, or partly of Treasury bills and partly of Exchequer bills, according as they think most beneficial for the public service.
That is a small part of the Section, but it puts the point in a nutshell.
It strikes me as remarkable that this admirable provision of the 1877 Act should be expressly excluded from this Consolidated Fund Bill. Can the Financial Secretary say why the Government have thought fit to exclude it from the Bill?
Secondly, I should like an explanation of subsection (2), which reads:
Any money borrowed otherwise than on Treasury Bills shall be repaid, with any interest payable thereon, out of the Consolidated Fund, at any period not later than the next succeeding quarter to that in which the money was borrowed.
Will the Financial Secretary explain what
at any period not later than the next succeeding quarter
means? Is it purely a financial year quarter? If so, when does it end—on 31st March, 30th June, 30th September or 31st December? If not, what is it?
Thirdly, under the Bill, in both Clause 1 and Clause 2, we have money going in and out of the Consolidated Fund. In Clause 1 we have money being issued out of the Fund, and before it can be issued out of it, the money has to get into the Fund. Under Clause 2 we have the power of the Treasury to borrow

money, which then goes into the Fund. Clause 2 (4) provides that:
Any money borrowed under this section shall be placed to the credit of the account of the Exchequer, and shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund, and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available.
It is all perfectly clear up to this point. If the Government wish to issue certain money out of the Fund, under Clause 2 they borrow the money by Treasury bills and otherwise. They then issue the money out of the Fund under Clause 1. It is also provided that at when the money on Treasury bills or the other borrowings come in, they go into the Fund, and when the Treasury bills and the other borrowings are repaid, they go out of the Consolidated Fund. It is clear from all that that the amounts of money which are coming into the Fund are the same amounts of money as are going out of the Fund. That all seems very reasonable.
However, the point that I want to put to the Financial Secretary—perhaps he can explain this—is that under Clause 2 (3) when we are paying out money whch is borrowed other than on Treasury bills, we are not only paying out the money that is borrowed but we are also paying out any interest payable thereon. What I want to know is how the money gets into the Consolidated Fund to pay out the accrued interest that we are paying out under subsection (3). All the other money that goes in and comes out seems to balance absolutely correctly. Mathematically, it all seems to be absolutely impeccable—all except this interest which is paid on all this money other than on Treasury bills. Will the Financial Secretary explain how the money gets into the Fund in the first place so that we can pay out this accrued interest?

Mr. Swingler: I still stick to the old-fashioned view that it is wrong for the Committee to pass a Clause knowing it to be inaccurate. Therefore, I register my protest at this procedure. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a farce."] One of my hon. Friends says that it is a farce. The proceedings have not been completely farcical, for we have learned a certain amount about the procedure of the Committee on special Consolidated Fund Bills of this kind.
One of my hon. Friends was right when he pointed out to the Chairman of Ways and Means that it is within the discretion of the Chair to withdraw the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", if the Chair is convinced by the arguments that it is wrong to proceed with it.
11.0 p.m.
It is a pity that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not use his discretion in this form so as to get us out of the difficulty which has arisen because many of us have recently discovered the amendability of this Clause. Had my hon. Friend known, when he spotted the mistake, that the Clause was amendable, he would have been prepared to produce an Amendment in order to correct the error. We were, however, given a blanket ruling by the Chair earlier on that suggested that the whole of the Bill was unamendable in Committee. We have been given no opportunity to make suggestions for amendment.
The case is put that if we rejected this Clause it would create difficulties. I do not want to create difficulty for the doctors and dentists who will benefit by the passage of the Bill, but I understand that we have been given an assurance that, although there is no money in the Consolidated Fund, and the Government need to borrow the money, the doctors and dentists have already been paid.
That is a piece of financial wizardry which I am not capable of understanding. I draw the conclusion that even if we rejected this Clause the doctors and dentists would still get the Pilkington award—indeed, they have already got the money. If the Clause were thrown out it would give some time for useful reflection in the Treasury about the importance of producing accurate legislation. This is quite an important thing for the Treasury to be given time to reflect upon, as well as to do a little more homework on the procedures of the Committee of the House of Commons in giving legislative sanction of this kind.
As the Committee has taken many hours to elucidate its position as of now, and as we do not know what the position will be on Third Reading—whether we are being drummed into being accessories

to the fact of making an Act we know to be inaccurate and wrong—I feel sure that some of my hon. Friends will wish to make a protest against passing this Clause.

Mr. S. Silverman: hope that the Committee will reject Clause 2, not as a protest against anything but because, on the merits, it would be wrong to pass it. I agree with my hon. Friends who have suggested that the Chairman might have had discretion to withdraw the Question, but if he had, he did not exercise it, and it is not for us to criticise that.
We are left, therefore, with the Motion before us, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". It is true that the Financial Secretary has said that he hopes to amend the Clause at some later stage if he gets it now, but all that is highly speculative. We do not know whether he will be able to move the Amendment he has in mind, whether it will be in order, or whether, if it were in order and moved it would be accepted by the House. Therefore, we have to deal with the Clause as it is now.
We are asked to pass the Clause as it is printed in the Bill. It does not seem to me that the word "sums" is not, from the drafting point of view, very different from the word "sum". I think it makes all the difference in the world whether there is one sum or more than one sum.
If Clause 2 had referred, as Clause 1 refers, to the words:
the sum of forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds
I would have had no objection, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has just given. But it does not do that, and this Clause is one which gives the Government power to borrow.
The context in which these words appear is:
The Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the same sums …
If we pass the Clause in that form, what security will the banks have for any money they advance to the Government? If it had been "the said sum" we would have been the sum set out in Clause 1,


and I understand from the Financial Secretary that that is what the Government intended. But we are not concerned with what they intended. We are concerned with what they have done. We are concerned with the words before us.
We cannot deal with it on the basis that if we give the Financial Secretary what he asks for tonight he will change his mind tomorrow, and that the House will permit him to change his mind tomorrow. That could be done, as the Standing Order makes clear, if the change proposed were something insignificant; something one does not have to say; something that Mr. Speaker himself could do without putting it before the House; something that merely involved consultation with the Clerks. It is not that kind of Amendment.
We are dealing with the security which anyone who lends the Government money to the extent of £42,877,600 will get. A security is no security if it is ambiguous. It is not a security if it is indeterminable. The banks could safely advance the money contemplated under the Clause if they knew that the security was to be the sum set out in Clause 1, but it is not to be the sum set out in Clause 1. It is "the said sums", and there are no "said sums" anywhere in the Bill.
I sincerely cannot understand the argument that we are dealing with a trivial dotting of the "i's" and a crossing of the t's", and that by stretching some other rule on some other occasion we can somehow or other put it right. We are dealing with a money Bill, the thing that the House of Commons acquired most of its liberties in defending.

Mr. Manuel: We are losing them now.

Mr. Silverman: My point is that on this Clause, as it stands, no one knows what we are doing. The banks will not know what security they will get. Unless it can be altered, and we are told that it cannot be altered here and now, and I think that it cannot be altered anywhere else, there will be no security on which the Government will be able to borrow the money which the Clause intends them to have the power to do.
I do not think that we ought to deal with it in this way. Let me make a

confession, and I speak only for myself. I know that the debates that we have had, the Ways and Means Resolution, and the Bill, are the Parliamentary machinery, of which this is a part, designed to give the Government their way about health charges. I confess that in those debates there has from time to time been so much indignation that my hon. Friends and I have seen fit to express that indignation by way of protest by prolonging the debates, sometimes in circumstances when, had the context been different, we would not have done so. I ask the Committee to believe me when I say that this is not such a point.
This is a point which goes to the roots of our constitutional procedure and the rights, powers and duties of the House of Commons. It may arise in what one may call a trivial way. It may arise, as I am sure it did, by inadvertence. I understand that the ship money controversy, which filled some part of the proceedings of the House 300 years ago, was by the same kind of inadvertence. All our constitutional precedents have been established in this way, and the rights, powers and duties of the House of Commons arise very largely out of matters of this kind.
I say to the Government, why must they pretend? The error has been made, they know that. It does not matter two pins how it was made or who made it. It has to be put right. Why in the world not put it right decently and in accordance with our long-established practice, instead of trying to force the thing through because, somehow or other, the merits of it are all right and, therefore, we need not bother about traditional procedure. That is not the way in which the House of Commons should approach its duties in financial matters.
It will, of course, be a nuisance if the Government have to withdraw this and bring it in again, but in the end they will get their way and they will have the satisfaction of doing it in the right way. Why should they be obstinate about it and adopt a procedure whereby it does not matter that they show disdain to some of my hon. Friends, so long as they show their power, with all the arithmetic of the Division Lobbies? What do they gain by that, except a lowering of the prestige of the House of Commons in a


world where the prestige of the House should be maintained and not undermined?

Sir Lionel Heald: Loud and prolonged cheers.

Mr. Silverman: I was able the other day to intervene in a speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to agree with him. It is something which occasionally happens when a right hon. and learned Gentleman is as various and unpredictable as this one. I do not know the purpose of his intervention, and I do not know what his neighbours think is amusing in a situation of this kind.

Sir L. Heald: I am entirely sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman. I thought he would like some support from this side.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. I shall be enormously grateful for the support which, I understand, he is now promising. He does not need to take the time of the Committee in making a speech in support. That will not carry the matter much further, and I flatter myself that I have said what has to be said on this. If he really wants to lend support and we all heard him make his promise, then, when the Division is called, we shall be delighted to see him in the Lobby in defence of the traditions and practices of the House of Commons.

11.15 p.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Although I understand there is an agreement about the time that we should end this debate, I hope that it will not be assumed that it is entirely a monopoly of hon. Members opposite. I think I am right in saying that it will be within the recollection of the Committee that during the night of 20th February, at about one o'clock, I suggested that it was not necessary for everybody to get so worried about this Clause because, in fact, the plural included the singular. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that the Act of Interpretation also infers that the singular includes the plural, that is the Act of 1889 which my hon. Friend has already quoted. It says:
… after the commencement of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—… (b) words in the singular shall include the plural, and words in the plural shall include the singular.

I said the other night that I thought it was probably unnecessary to make any Amendment to this Clause if all our concern was to do what we wanted to do. I accept, of course, that it is necessary that an Amendment should be made if we are to bring the Clause into exact line with all previous Consolidated Fund Bills which have dealt only with one fund. But my own feeling is that that is being meticulously careful and unnecessarily so. Nevertheless, I bow to superior opinion on the matter because Consolidated Fund Bills go back a long way. I do not know whether hon. Members know when they first started. The first Consolidated Fund Bill was started on 10th May, 1787, and it may interest the Commitee if I say what it covered:
And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That, from and after the Tenth Day of May one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, the several Duties of Customs. Excise and Stamps, granted or consoidated by this Act, together with the Duty on Hackney Coaches and Chairs, granted by the Acts of the Ninth of Queen Anne, and Eleventh of King George the Third, and on Hackney Coaches, by the Twenty fourth of King George the Third; the duty on Hawkers and Pedlers made perpetual by an Act of the Fifth of King George the First; and the Duty on Hawkers and Pedlers, granted by the Twenty fifth of King George the Third; the Duty on Houses, Windows and Lights, granted by the Sixth of King George the Third—

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of order, Sir William. May I take it, in view of the speech of the hon. Member, that it will be in order to discuss all the Consolidated Fund Acts passed since the reign of George III?

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The hon. Member may have seen that I was fidgeting and just about to rise. I was looking forward to the moment when the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) would direct his remarks more closely to the Motion before the Committee.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am indeed, sorry, Sir William, if I have in any way made you feel that I was getting out of order. I thought I had the consent of the Committee and that hon. Members were showing interest and wanted to know what was in the first Consolidated Fund Measure. But I bow to your Ruling, Sir William, or shall I say to your hint of a possible Ruling, and I will merely say,


"etc., etc.—" and that all those were to be put into a Fund to be called the Consolidated Fund. That is the first occasion on which it ever occurs in the history of this country. Up to that time the various taxes which had been raised were dealt with in completely separate funds.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order, Sir William. Would it be possible to explain how the hon. Member's very interesting historical disquisition helps us to decide whether to put Clause 2 into this Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: As the Committee knows, the debate has ranged rather widely, but I think that now it is going too wide. I hope that the hon. Member will come directly to the Motion.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Of course I will, Sir William. The point of my mentioning it at all was simply to show that the Consolidated Fund Bill goes a long way back into our history and that it is probably perfectly right at the appropriate stage to ensure that this Clause is worded in accordance with precedent. Of course, I accept that and for that reason—although I still consider any amendment entirely unnecessary in order to convey what we want to convey, and I profoundly disagree with hon. Members opposite—I see that perhaps we ought to amend it because of the long precedent in this matter. It is perfectly obvious that all the points raised by hon. Members fail because the actual sum is mentioned, the total is mentioned.

Mr. Manuel: The actual sums are not mentioned.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: According to the interpretation, the word "sums" includes the singular. The singular sum is mentioned in the Bill itself—the sum of £42,877,600. The point of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) fails completely because there is not the slightest danger of the Treasury issuing more than is covered by that sum.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think the hon. Member has understood the point. It is true that Clause 1 contains the word "sum" and refers to the precise sum which is mentioned. In Clause 2, the word "sums" is mentioned, which may

or may not include the precise sum in Clause 1, but obviously includes also something else unknown.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I know the hon. Member is reading it like that, but it mentions "the said sums". The words "the said" refer back to Clause 1. Therefore, the hon. Member is on an entirely false point, and I am surprised that with all his legal experience he should be.

Mr. Silverman: rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I cannot give way again.

Mr. Silverman: I know the hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way. He is afraid to meet the point.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member knows that I have given way to him many times.

Mr. Silverman: No, the hon. Gentleman gave way once only and now he has misunderstood my point.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In any case, I understand that it is out of order to speak in a sitting position in this place. The hon. Member knows me well enough to be aware that I have always given way, but I understand that there is an agreement about time, and I hope we shall honour that agreement, but I thought that somebody on this side of the Committee should say something because the Clause has been attacked viciously by hon. Members opposite on false grounds and I hope that I have shown what those false grounds are.

Mr. M. Foot: The hon. Member has referred to an agreement about time. Can you give us any guidance about that, Sir William?

Mr. George Wigg: If there has been any agreement, surely the hon. Gentleman's remark was a reflection on the Chair. Such an important matter must involve the Chair. Has there been consultation with the Chair?

Mr. Swingler: Has there been any suggestion about the moving of the Closure? I know that we cannot ask you for any assurance on the point, Sir William, but there seems to be some suggestion that at some point the debate is going to be gagged. Can we have an assurance on that point?

The Deputy-Chairman: I know of no agreement about time. Agreement takes place not with the Chair but through the usual channels, as I understand it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is it not the case that this Consolidated Fund Bill, like all other Consolidated Fund Bills, is exempt from the Standing Order relating to the closure of our proceedings? Surely nobody has any power whatever to agree to curtail the rights of hon. Members where the Standing Order provides that discussion may continue.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I should be obliged if the Financial Secretary would be good enough to enlarge a little on an explanation which he gave but which I did not find altogether easy to understand with regard to lines 10 and 11 of Clause 2 (4). On a previous occasion when we were debating this Bill in Committee the hon. Gentleman let us into one or two Treasury secrets. He told us that the Consolidated Fund is, so to speak, only a notional fund, that it has no real existence. I believe he said there is nothing that one can touch or hold in one's hand. In fact, it is an imaginary fund, with no money in it and out of which this enormous sum has to be applied for purposes for which the Bill is designed. I take it that there is only one Consolidated Fund?

Sir E. Boyle: indicated assent.

Mr. Driberg: Thank you very much. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury indicated assent. There is only one Consolidated Fund. That is the notionally enormous fund on which we sometimes have general debates much wider than this limited debate in which one can raise any matter of administration or grievance. Clause 2 (4) says:
Any money borrowed under this section shall be placed to the credit of the account of the Exchequer, and shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund".
That is, the only, non-existent Consolidated Fund—
…and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available.
That seems very difficult to understand, or else to be completely nonsensical, and I can hardly believe that even this Government would bring before us a Measure which contained a nonsense of that kind. If one considers those last words in their

strict literal meaning, as I suppose one must, they indicate that
Any money borrowed under this section
shall be
available in any manner in which such Fund is available
that is to say, presumably, for any of the purposes of the Consolidated Fund itself, the whole Fund, and not only for the purposes arising out of the Pilkington award. I wonder if the Financial Secretary would clear that up?

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), I am very much concerned about subsection (4). Listening to this debate has been an education.
I have sat right through this debate and the former one, and I have had some initiation into the mysteries of high finance. Having heard most of the comments of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, I still find it difficult to understand a procedure whereby a fund which does not exist chooses how money which has already been paid out shall be paid out. As I mentioned in the House some time ago, most doctors in my area received this money on 1st February. I suppose that explains how Clause I pays the money out and Clause 2 gets the money in.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking is one of great concern. As I understand the position, the Exchequer is the handmaiden of the Minister of Health. It is the medium through which he can have the money disbursed where it is intended it shall be disbursed. I might be mistaken, for perhaps the Minister of Health is the handmaiden of the Financial Secretary or of the Exchequer.
We have no guarantee that although we have passed the Motion "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," there is a clear indication that the doctors will receive this money and that it is safeguarded by subsection (4) of this Clause and that this money will be reimbursed in that way. I shall be interested to hear the Financial Secretary explain that.

Sir E. Boyle: I shall endeavour to answer some of the points raised during the last three-quarters of an hour.
First, I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was possibly making an error in thinking that there was some slight on Scotland by the fact that Scotland was not referred to in Clause 2 (1). Exactly the opposite is true, because, as I endeavoured to explain before, there is no statutory restriction on borrowing from Scottish banks as there is in the case of borrowing from the Bank of England. The Treasury can borrow from those banks and they in fact hold various Government securities. So I think that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies should feel pleased and honoured rather than sorry that Scotland is not specifically referred to in sub-section (1).
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) asked about the reference to Treasury Bills Act, 1877, in subsection (2). I am afraid that at that point I was doing what the hon. Member for Nelson and Caine (Mr. S. Silverman) was censuring just now—doing my home work during the lesson. I endeavoured to find out what I could on the subject, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman is this. The 1877 Treasury Bills Act provides, as I understand it, for the refinancing of Treasury Bills beyond one financial year. The Consolidated Fund Bill which we are considering this evening provides for borrowing powers temporarily, that is to say, strictly within the financial year 1960–61.
11.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how this money got into the Consolidated Fund in order to pay the interest referred to in subsection (3). The answer is that it comes directly from the proceeds of general taxation.
Finally, the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) said that he still could not quite follow what I said about Clause 2 (4), and therefore I will try to explain the point again. The Exchequer account, as I said, is in fact a banking account into which all receipts of Government are paid and one single Consolidated Fund is thereby constituted. With respect, I did not say the other night that the Consolidated Fund did not exist or that it had no money in it. I said:
…the Consolidated fund is a fund out of which Supply is granted to Her Majesty.

And later I went on to say, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, that
the Consolidated Fund is not one one can actually point to or hold in one's hand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 211–2.]
I am not a great expert in philosophy, although I am extremely interested in the subject. Something exists here.

Mr. Driberg: Does it exist only in a Berkeleyan sense?

Sir E. Boyle: Not only in a Berkeleyan sense but also, one might say, to be more up to date, in a Stuart Hampshire sense. It is something one can identify and distinguish from something else. Quite clearly, the Consolidated Fund is one fund and the Civil Contingencies Fund is another. There is a distinction between the two. A great deal more money can be shared out of the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Driberg: There is actual cash in it, cash, chinking lolly?

Sir E. Boyle: All receipts of Government are put into one Consolidated Fund unless Parliament directs otherwise.
I think those are the points which hon. Members have raised.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my last point, that it is to be
available in any manner in which such Fund is available.

Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry. All Government payments are made from the Consolidated Fund in the first instance. The point of those last words, as I tried to reply earlier, is that it is essential for the economic management of the Exchequer that all receipts, including those arising from anything under the authority of this Bill, shall be available to meet any payments as they may occur from day to day. That is the whole purpose of these words
and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available.
These words enshrine the fact that we do not have an hypothecated system.
There is one other point. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asked quite fairly the other night what was to prevent money voted under the Bill being used when it comes to doing the borrowing for purposes other than the National Health Service. The strict


answer is that it is quite true that there is nothing to prevent that, but the Government can meet out of Votes only expenditure on a Supply Resolution agreed to by the House. It is really in Committee of Supply and not by means of passing the Consolidated Fund Bill that the control of expenditure strictly arises.
I hope that having given those answers the Committee will now feel able to part with the Clause.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Financial Secretary elucidate that point? We have had much argument about this. Does it mean that the money to which we are giving legislative sanction tonight could be used, for example, for the Government's nuclear weapons policy? Could it he used for old-age pensions? Could it be used for sewerage schemes? It is not in any way, according to the sanction, attached to doctors' and dentists' pay.

Sir E. Boyle: I repeat what I said, because this is important. The Government can meet out of Votes only expenditure founded on Supply Resolutions agreed to by the House of Commons. It may be perfectly true that on a number of occasions Supply Resolutions get through Parliament very quickly without hon. Members always realising fully what has happened, but we have a perfectly full and adequate theoretical control of expenditure through the operations of the Committee of Supply.

Mr. S. Silverman: The Financial Secretary told the Committee that he had answered the points put to him. I may have fallen asleep for a minute or two, but I do not think I did. I missed any reference to his speech to what I think was the substantial point—whether it is a sound one is another matter—which I made to him about the effect of using the plural word "sums in subsection (1), referring to a security for a large sum of money to be borrowed, instead of the intended word "sum." Does the hon. Gentleman say that this makes no difference and has no effect? I put a point to him. I should like an answer to it.

Sir E. Boyle: I did not comment on the hon. Member's speech because, in so far as I had a comment, I think

had by implication made it already in some points of order I raised earlier in the evening. I do not want to arouse the controversy again, but there may be other opportunities to consider this point.
Here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I do not altogether share his admiration for King George III, but on this point I agree with him. The fact that there is a reference to "the said sums" makes clear what Clause 2 is getting it. We will have a chance of debating the word later in the evening, but I do not believe that subsection (1) as drafted could be dangerously misleading from the point of view of those who have to operate the Clause.

Mr. Wigg: Will the Financial Secretary help me? I do not quite understand what the words "or otherwise" mean. Could the Government, for example, pledge their credit? If they did, it would not be a very great asset on which to raise money. If it does not mean that, will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the Committee what is offered by way of security if the money is to be borrowed?

Sir E. Boyle: The words are:
The Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise….
I tried to explain earlier that one possibility is the extension and enlargement of the National Debt.

Mr. Driberg: I know that the Financial Secretary was trying to be helpful, and I am grateful to him, but I am still a little puzzled by the concluding words of subsection (4). Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that these words did mean what they seem to mean in the plain sense of the English words printed in the Bill. Right at the end of his speech he seemed to reverse that trend and imply that after all they did not moan what they seemed to mean, since the money borrowed under the Clause and with which the Bill is concerned can be used only for the purposes of the Pilkington award. If that is so, I cannot understand why these words are in, because they are meaningless in this context if that is so. It says:
and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available.


That is not true according to the explanation which the Financial Secretary gave us at the end of his speech. On the other hand, if the words do mean what they say, as I thought the hon. Gentleman was beginning to indicate a little earlier in his speech, I put it to you, Sir William, almost as a point of order, that we should be able to debate this much more widely than we have done.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am only anxious to understand exactly what the Financial Secretary is saying. He said that the answer to my point was, as indicated by his hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), that since the Clause refers to the "said sums" and since the only sum or sums to which the word "said" could apply is the word "sum" in Clause 1. therefore the two things mean the same.
Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying? Is that want we are to understand? Is he saying, in effect, that it does not matter whether, on Third Reading, the proposed Amendment is made or not and that if the Amendment which he proposes to move on Third Reading is either disallowed, ruled out of order or rejected, so that "sums" remains in the Clause where it now appears, this would make no difference to the Bill? If that is so, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment becomes unnecessary. If, on the other hand, the Amendment is necessary, it can only be because it makes some difference.
What I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain is, first, whether he is saying that it makes no difference. If, on the other hand, he is not saying that it makes no difference but that it makes some difference, will he explain exactly what difference it makes? This is what we have to decide. It will be most important when we come to consider whether the proposed drafting Amendment is one of substance or merely drafting. That will depend on whether it means anything.
I want the Financial Secretary to be frank with us now, at this stage. Is he saying that it does not matter in the least whether we say "sums" in Clause 2 and "sum" in Clause 1 or whether we make the correction that he has it

in mind to attempt to make at a later stage? Does it make a difference or not? If it makes a difference, what difference is it?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry if I confused the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) by any words at the end of my remarks. The point simply is that in the Bill we are authorising the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund, and authorising the Treasury to borrow up to a certain limit, money which shall
be available in any manner in which such Fund is available"—
that is to say, money which is part of the Consolidated Fund and is not something loose on its own.
As I have tried to explain, it is essential for the month-by-month economic management of the Exchequer that all receipts into the Exchequer shall be available to meet any payments as they may accrue from day to day. In other words, the money with which we are concerned in this Bill is a part of the Consolidated Fund and can be used in exactly the same way as all money in the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Swingler: We understand that the money has already been paid out to the doctors and the dentists. It is as if the Treasury has already borrowed the money without sanction and is getting the sanction afterwards. Presumably, we have passed previous Bills to sanction a certain amount of money to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund some of which has now found its way into the pockets of the doctors and the dentists. We are now sanctioning the borrowing of money which, presumably, will be used for other purposes, in which case this money may go for widely different purposes—perhaps for pensions, for roads, for defence, and so on. Is this true?

Sir E. Boyle: As I admitted in my speech, this is well known in the Committee. We do not have money hypothecated for particular purposes, as the hon. Member is well aware. The control of expenditure on those things on which the Government are able to spend money and have cover to spend money is exercised, not by these Bills, but by means of the activities of the House in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Wigg: The Financial Secretary says that there is no hypothecated


revenue. Is there any hypothecated expenditure? Although there is no money in the bank, for example, could the Government or the Minister of Health carry on "on tick" even if there is nothing at all in the, "kitty," hoping against hope that in due course the Government would be able to raise the money by borrowing?

Mr. S. Silverman: Clause 2 gives the Financial Secretary power to borrow.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I know that. The point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) that he wants to establish whether in actual fact this money is specifically earmarked for the payment of doctors and dentists, or is it that the money?—[Interruption.] I am addressing to the Financial Secretary an argument which is intelligent, and, therefore. I dare say that it is not appreciated by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I want to know whether the money can be paid out of the clouds, whether it can be paid long in advance of revenue against the hope that the money will ultimately come in in some form.

Sir E. Boyle: I think I can best explain the point to the hon. Gentleman in this way. Taxation is not hypothecated but expenditure is appropriated. We appropriate expenditure not by means of a Consolidated Fund Bill but by means of the Appropriation Bill which we pass at the end of the Session when all the Supply Days have been completed.

Mr. Wigg: If the Financial Secretary would go on he would certainly help me and help the Committee. Would he give us a dissertation for a few minutes on the difference between hypothecation and appropriation?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think, Sir William, that you would encourage me to give an impromptu dissertation on that subject on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". However, I would say to the hon. Gentleman, without any discourtesy—it is quite clearly understood—that the difference lies between not hypothecating a tax for particular purposes and appropriating expenditure by means of an annual Act which we invariably pass after the

Supply Days are completed at the end of each Session.
Turning to what was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I was interested in the form in which he put his question, and I quite accept his point. I would put it this way: in his speech he drew attention to what I felt to be possibly slightly exaggerated consequences of the Clause in its existing form. But in answer to his direct question, let me say that I have not the slightest doubt that an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill is desirable. It is obvious that legislation, to put it at its lowest, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne well knows—

Mr. Silverman: rose—

Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my sentence. I respect his enthusiasm as a debater, but I sometimes think that he is better at talking than listening.
I would only say that it is our job in this Committee to ensure that legislation is passed in as correctly drafted a form as possible. Hon. Members opposite quite properly raised a point the other night, and I have no doubt—absolutely none—that an Amendment ought to be moved at a later stage of the Bill; but I would rather not go beyond that in replying to the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry to be troublesome about it, but the hon. Gentleman said that he would answer my direct question. I listened very carefully to hear whether he was going to answer it, but he has not answered it. I had previously understood that he thought it was desirable to make an Amendment. What I am asking is whether it is necessary to make the Amendment. In other words, the direct question was: does it make any difference to the Bill at all whether he makes the Amendment or not? If the answer is no, I know where I am. If the answer is yes, I should like the Financial Secretary to say exactly what difference will be made by it. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to come clean with the Committee and tell us what the answer is to a perfectly simple and quite direct question. Let us have an equally simple and equally direct answer.

Sir Leslie Plummer: Despite the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who goes on with his point quite properly, I want to return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), because I do not see why my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne should monopolise almost the whole of the evening with his question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking has raised a point which I am afraid the Financial Secretary has not answered. I want to put it to the Financial Secretary in a different form. Clause 2 (4) states:
and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available.
I submit that those words are tautolo-gous. The Financial Secretary has explained to us at very great length that they are quite meaningless, and the more one reads subsection (4) the more one is convinced that he is right. What does it say?
Any money borrowed under this section shall be placed to the credit of the account of the Exchequer…
Splendid!
and shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund…
Why not a full stop there? What else is necessary to be said? There should be a full stop after "Fund". I recommend that the comma be deleted and a period inserted.
For what purpose do we now have the words following that passage? The Financial Secretary has made it clear that they are meaningless, that taxation is not hypothecated. He has also made clear the arrangement on Supply by which this money is voted and is spent on an appropriation to be allocated.
Are we not repeating a Treasury cliché? It seems that in all these Consolidated Fund Bills and special Bills of this kind, this phrase appears because it has appeared almost since the days of George III, mentioned by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). In the interests of simplification and of the saving of the time of compositors and of paper, could it not in future be so arranged that words that have no meaning are not included in bills? Would it not be a good thing

in this case if these words were deleted, so that the purpose of the Bill would be clearer to everybody?

Mr. Pavitt: If the Financial Secretary wanted to follow through the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) would it be in order for him to move such an amendment on Third Reading?

The Chairman: What would be in order on Third Reading is a question for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Swingler: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) is correct. On 20th February, Sir Gordon, you told us:
The purpose of the Bill is to give authority to the Lords of the Treasury to make payments which the House has already approved. This grant of £42,877,600 was approved in Committee of Supply on 5th December and the Resolution was agreed to by the House on 20th December. Therefore, the Clause authorising this sum cannot be amended and 'according to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 166.]

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about Clause 1. We are now on Clause 2.

Mr. Swingler: I am coming to the relevance to Clause 2, Sir Gordon. We have discovered that the Committee stage of such a Bill is not always formal and sometimes is debated. Before you reoccupied the Chair, the Financial Secretary informed us that this money for which he requires powers of borrowing is not, in fact, earmarked for the purpose for which it was alleged to be earmarked—for doctors and dentists pay—that it is the practice of the Treasury to acquire authority to raise sums by Resolution, and that these sums are reconciled in the accountancy of the Treasury over the years.
The hon. Gentleman was frank, and made it clear that this sum for which he requires borrowing powers cannot be acquired for doctors and dentists pay, because that money has already been paid to them. It is no use pretending that they are waiting for the sanction of this Clause; the doctors and dentists are already spending the money.
The Treasury must have got that money from somewhere else. Therefore, the Treasury is now in deficit and requires borrowing powers to raise this


money. Yet the £42 million we are discussing, and for which we are giving borrowing sanction, will probably be spent upon something else. It might be spent on highways, or on pensions, or on the H-Bomb.
It will all be reconciled in the accounts, as the Financial Secretary has explained. It cannot strictly be said that the purpose of the Bill is to give him legislative authority for the pay of doctors and dentists, otherwise my hon. Friend would be correct. This phraseology would not be required because, as you ruled earlier, Sir Gordon, it would be for only one purpose. With such authority, the words "be available in any manner" would not be necessary.
This phraseology has been put in because the Treasury intends to borrow this money for some purpose other than the purpose of doctors' and dentists' remuneration. That is correct, is it not? Therefore, one is entitled to comment that the money will be used for a variety of these other purposes.
If I am wrong and my hon. Friend is right, I suggest that we cut out this archaic language. What is uncovered here by the use of this vague phrase is that the Financial Secretary wants carte blanche to enable the Treasury to spend the money as it pleases.

Mr. Wigg: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) was a little unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He treated him a little roughly. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne made the most important point that has been made.
The Financial Secretary was not quite clear whether the Amendment ought to be made. My hon. Friend then amended his question and asked whether it was necessary. If a drafting mistake has been made—and the Government always make drafting mistakes and get away with them—that is what the legal profession depends on. We want to know whether it is essential to change the procedure of the House to make the Amendment.
It may be that the Financial Secretary has not acquainted himself with this point I wonder, Sir Gordon, whether

you would consider adjourning the Committee to enable the hon. Gentleman to consult his legal advisers, or to send for the Law Officers of the Crown to give the Committee an answer on this point? I think that the Committee ought to have the advice of the Attorney-General. We ought to send for him. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman consider sending for one of the Law Officers, preferably the Attorney-General, to advise the Committee whether it will be absolutely essential to make this Amendment?

Mr. Diamond: The position is clear. The Secretary of State for the Home Department said the other day:
There is a mistake in Clause 2 of the Bill." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1961, Vol. 635, c. 314.]
The Government Front Bench cannot at the moment decide whether there is a mistake. The Financial Secretary cannot make up his mind whether to support his hon. Friend who says that it does not matter. He is trying to say both things. I take what the Leader of the House said, that there is a mistake in Clause 2, and we are being invited to pass a Clause in which there is a mistake.
This is a fantastic and stupid mistake. It is making us all look a lot of silly asses. I have appealed to you, Sir Gordon, to use your power in the Chair to get us out of this difficulty, and you have given your Ruling on that. We have appealed to the Government, and the Government propose to pursue this, notwithstanding that they are inviting us to pass a Clause which, on the authority of the Leader of the House, has a mistake in it, and nobody can say, including Mr. Speaker who was quite specific on this, that this mistake can be put right at a later stage of the Bill.
12 m.
The Government have an alternative before them of not pursuing with the Bill and bring in another Bill. They do not propose to do that. There is no reason why we should pass this Clause there is good reason why we should not do so. The money was needed for the doctors, and was given authority under the Ways and Means Resolution. The Government have the legislative authority for that Resolution. They got it on Clause 1,


which authorises the issue out of the Consolidated Fund. All this Clause would do would be to vote money into the Consolidated Fund, which could be used either to replace money spent on the doctors or for any other purpose.
The simple point is that the money voted for the doctors has been approved and has been paid. Nothing further is needed to enable the doctors to have been properly and authoritatively paid. There being, therefore, no reason for the passage of this Clause, but the best of reasons against it, I am proposing to vote against it and I invite my hon. Friends to join me.

Sir L. Plummer: On a point of order. I have been advised by the Leader of the House that there is a mistake in the Bill. If I, knowing there is this mistake, vote for it, have I got Parliamentary privilege which protects me from any action taken against me for malfeasance by my constituents? Am I putting myself in peril in knowingly voting or refraining from voting?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman does not put himself in peril by voting on any Motion in this House.

Mr. Wigg: I had not finished my speech. I resumed my seat because I thought the Financial Secretary was going to tell us whether he was going to send for the Law Officers of the Crown. It is essential that we should know whether a mistake in this Bill is of such a character that it is desirable to amend it in the interests of good government or whether it is absolutely essential. If it is essential, it is a grave breach of this institution to ask us to pass this Clause. Once we pass it we lose control, and all we have is the Government's undertaking that they are going to do what they said they would do. On their record, such an undertaking is almost a guarantee that they will do the opposite. Could we, therefore, have advice on this narrow point? Could we have the benefit of the Law Officers' opinion upon whether it is desirable or essential that this amendment should be made?

Mr. Driberg: I would like to pursue the point. It is unlikely that we shall have finished our scrutiny of this Clause before business starts tomorrow, and

who knows what may happen overnight to the Financial Secretary, who has given us this undertaking? I hope that no accident will happen to him. But he may feel obliged to resign from the Government, as he has very creditably done on one previous occasion. The Prime Minister may decide to send him to another place. Anything might happen, and the undertaking he has given might not be binding on his successor. We are in a very great difficulty about voting for this Clause, or refraining from voting knowing that it contains an inaccuracy.
I am still very concerned about the last twelve words in the Clause. I think it has become increasingly clear. I think I am beginning dimly to apprehend, from the Financial Secretary's very cogent and repeated explanations, what they mean, or are intended to mean. But the more clearly I begin to apprehend what they mean, the more clearly it is borne in on me that, as my hon. Friend said, they are really tautologous, redundant, supererogatory, and otiose. And if that be so, I think it is perhaps rather much to ask the Financial Secretary to delete them "off the cuff," so to speak, tonight. It is clear that the Clause means exactly the same, or something quite accurate without them.
So would the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to look into the precedents to see whether, as my hon. Friend suggested, these words are a Treasury cliche constructed over centuries of Consolidated Fund Bills and inapplicable to the present day? If that is so, will he consider the drastic reform of omitting these words the next time a Consolidated Fund Bill comes before this Committee?

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it possible to get advice from the Government about whether they are going to send for the Attorney-General?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Swingler: Further to that point of order. You have refused to give us any guidance on this point, Sir Gordon. We have asked the Chair to give us guidance because when we are trying to come to a decision on this Clause we have to make up our minds what is likely to be


the future progress of this Bill, and whether we are going to commit an error that cannot be remedied at some later stage, which of course, might happen. In your wisdom you refuse to give us any indication whether this is—

The Chairman: Order. I cannot say what will happen on Third Reading.

Mr. Swingler: Surely somebody must know. Is it possible for us to find out whether in fact the mistake in this Clause can be remedied on Third Reading, or must we assume there is uncertainty about this? In which case hon. Members can imagine that it is unlikely that this can be remedied and that therefore we should take some action now in order to remedy this inaccuracy. I suggest that by not giving a Ruling on the matter you are indicating to the Committee that our action should be to try to remedy this mistake now, because we cannot be at all sure that we shall have any opportunity to do so in the future.

The Chairman: The opportunity the hon. Member has is to vote against this Clause. I cannot tell what will happen on Third Reading. It is not a matter for this Committee.

Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. I put a point of order in a respectful way and during the fifteen years I have been in the House I have invariably received a courteous reply from the Chair. It may be that I did not frame my question as I might have wished to do, but I do not think I invited the curt reply which I received. In fact, I am putting a point of great importance to every hon. Member. We are asking what this means and it is clear that the hon. Gentleman cannot reply—

The Chairman: Order. It is not a point of order for me as to which Minister speaks for the Government.

Mr. Wigg: May I be allowed to put my point—

Mr. Diamond: I do not see why; I was not allowed to put mine.

Mr. Wigg: The point I wish to put is this. I asked on a point of order whether we could be given advice whether the Law Officers could be informed—

The Chairman: Order. I have answered that that is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Wigg: With respect. On a point of order I asked whether we could get an answer from the Government Front Bench—

The Chairman: It is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, I am aware that it is not a point of order for you in that sense. But using a point of order, I should have thought in a proper way—

The Chairman: It is not a point of order for me in any sense.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Would it be in order for me to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again in order that we could afford time to the Government to make further inquiries into the matter?

The Chairman: I would not accept that Motion at this stage.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir Gordon, if you refuse to accept the Motion we can at least debate the matter. We have a right to submit the reasons why we seek to move to report Progress.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has not got that right.

Mr. M. Foot: I should be interested to hear the arguments adduced by my hon. Friends on the need for the presence of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, as this is a matter on which I always need to be convinced. However, I do not think it would help the Committee if we had the Attorney-General here tonight. It would merely lengthen the proceedings, although I do not wish to anticipate any argument that my hon. Friends may wish to make on that point.
What I wish to ask the Financial Secretary is this. I do not think he has answered it yet. One of the most impressive arguments from this side of the Committee on the Clause is that which was adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond)—and I do not think the Financial Secretary has attempted to deal with this point—namely, if this Clause were left out of the Bill the Government would still get the substance of what they want. They


still have the money by Clause 1. The doctors would get the money, which is the main purpose of the Bill. Indeed, they have got it already. If the Bill went through without Clause 2, then the Measure would still have some value and we would have overcome the difficulty. We would not have passed a Clause with all these invidious and unresolved difficulties.
Therefore, I think we should have a full explanation from the Financial Secretary as to why it is so essential to have this Clause, despite all the difficulties which have been revealed in it. It may be said that some extra money may be needed for a period, but, as was explained earlier by the Financial Secretary, the whole of this Bill might have been unnecessary, because the money for providing for the purposes of the Bill—although they have not been carefully or precisely revealed—might have been raised not by means of a special Consolidated Fund but from the Civil Contingencies Fund. As I understand it, from what the Financial Secretary told us the other night, the only reason that the Government could not deal with the matter, or thought that they could not deal with the matter under the Civil Contingencies Fund—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is dealing with Clause I now.

Mr. Foot: I was hoping that I was dealing with the question as to whether it was necessary to have Clause 2 in addition to Clause 1. I may have got it wrong, and that is why I ask for explanations, but I thought that the only purpose of Clause 2 was that it was an additional safeguard for the Treasury, added to the main purpose which was achieved by Clause 1, and that it was an additional advantage if, in certain circumstances, it was required to borrow money. If, indeed, it was required to borrow extra money, that amount could be dealt with, as I understand it, under the Civil Contingencies Fund.
The Financial Secretary was trying to explain the other night that it is conceivable that the whole of this matter might have been dealt with by the Civil Contingencies Fund—that is, if the amount that has already been voted by the House under Clause 1 for the doctors had been a smaller amount it could have

been dealt with under the Civil Contingencies Fund. That is correct, is it not? It is purely a matter of degree. Therefore, as the only advantage of Clause 2 is that it gives the Treasury the possibility of covering itself further, I should have thought that this could be dealt with under the Civil Contingencies Fund. If it could be dealt with under the Civil Contingencies Fund it would be better for the constitutional practice of this House that we should do it that way rather than pass a Bill which has these defects in it.
12.15 a.m.
I hope I am not misrepresenting what the Financial Secretary said in the previous discussion:
I do not think that it will surprise any of the ex-F.S.Ts.
There are not many of them here to give us reassurance—
—if I may so put it—who may be present, to know that that Fund would almost certainly be unable to bear that extra strain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 195.]
The hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we might not have had this Bill if the doctors' award had been slightly smaller. I hope he will explain what would be the exact consequence, because this is what we shall vote about, if the House knocked out Clause 2 altogether. What would be the position of the Government? Would they be in any difficulty? Would it give rise to any awkward arrangements in connection with the moneys they have already paid out to the doctors? Would it put the Government to any inconvenience other than that they would look rather foolish having argued for this Clause for so long, if they said it did not matter all that much?
I hope the hon. Gentleman will explain what would be the consequences if we voted against Clause 2 because, unless he can show that there would be grave disadvantages, the arguments deduced on this side of the Committee are reasons why I think the whole Committee would wish not to pass this Clause and run all the constitutional risks my hon. Friends have described which we would be involved in if we adopted the advice of the Leader of the House, which apparently was on the very slender constitutional grounds of altering a Bill on Third Reading and putting into it on Third Reading a substantial amendment.


If we can avoid those difficulties, it will be a great advantage to us all. I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer the points which have been pressed on him.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Sir Gordon, would you now accept a Motion, That the Chairman do now leave the Chair, as an alternative to the Motion I endeavoured to move earlier?

The Chairman: No, I shall not accept that Motion.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, before you rule on it, could I submit reasons why I move it?

The Chairman: No, I have decided not to accept the Motion.

Sir E. Boyle: I wish to answer two points made in the last half hour of debate.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) asked whether Clause 2 was essential to the Bill. I cannot say—it would be dishonest of me to pretend to say—whether from the point of view of Treasury borrowing operations this Clause entitling the Treasury to borrow by one means or another £42 million or £43 million is essential at the moment. Any hon. Member is entitled if he wishes to vote against the Clause, but I think we should have to go back possibly to the reign of King George III—anyway a long way back—to find a Consolidated Fund Bill which did not include this type of Clause. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent and one which the House would have every reason to regret if it did not contain a Clause limiting the rights of the Treasury to borrow in a case of this kind.

Mr. Diamond: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us from his great historical knowledge how far back we would have to go to find a Consolidated Fund Bill in which the Government were advising the whole Committee to vote for a Clause in which there was an error?

Sir E. Boyle: I shall come to that in a moment; I shall not evade the point.
I was going to add that I think the case for including a Clause on the lines of Clause 2, a Clause setting out the powers of the Treasury to borrow, is all the more essential under present day conditions when the total of Government expenditure is so much greater both in absolute terms and as a share of the national income than it was years ago. I cannot do more than give the Committee that advice.
I come now to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and other hon. Members about exactly how essential it is that an Amendment should be moved at a later stage of the Bill. If I appeared to evade the question of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and again it was not deliberate, it was because it is one of those questions concerning which one has to pick one's words very carefully before giving a precise answer.
I have endeavoured to answer, I hope, with as much proficiency as a Law Officer could have done in the last half hour, and the best answer is this. While I believe it likely that Clause 2 in its present form is clear and would be held to be clear, none the less I have no doubt that it is desirable that the Clause should pass the House in a form which the whole Committee recognises to be the right one, and it is for that reason that I shall move an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee Division:—

The Tellers being come to the Table, it was stated by Colonel J. H. HARRISON, one of the Tellers, that the Tellers were not agreed as to the number who voted with the Ayes.

Whereupon The CHAIRMAN directed the Committee to proceed again to a Division:—

Ayes 128, Noes 16.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[12.30 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fisher, Nigel
Heave, Alrey


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gammons, Lady
Noble, Michael


Atlason, James
Gibson-Watt, David
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Atkins, Humphrey
Glover, Sir Douglas
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Barter, John
Goodhart, Philip
Peel, John


Botsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Green, Alan
Pott, Percivall


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Grimston, Sir Robert
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bidgood, John C.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Prior, J. M. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bishop, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Rees, Hugh


Bossom, Clive
Hirst. Geoffrey
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hocking, Philip N.
Roots, William


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Holland, Philip N.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Box, Donald
Hopkins, Alan
Seymour, Leslie


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornby, R. P.
Sharples, Richard


Brewis, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Shaw, M.


Bullard, Denys
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Shepherd, William


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye)
Smithers, Peter


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Jackson, John
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chanson, H. P. G.
Jennings, J. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Talbot, John E.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Kirk, Peter
Tooling, William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leavey, J. A.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Coulson, J. M.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Critchley, Julian
Lilley, F. J. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Curran, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Low, Fit. Hon. Sir Toby
Watts, James




Low, Fit. Hon. Sir Toby


Dance, James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
W Wells, John (Maidstone)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
MacArthur, Ian
Whiteiaw, William


Deedes, W. F.
McLaren, Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maddan, Martin
Wise, A. R.


du Cann, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Duncan, Sir James
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Woodnutt, Mark


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Warsley, Marcus


Elliott,R.W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.



Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Stratton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Farr, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Finlay, Graeme
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Diamond, John
Manuel, A. C.
Swingler, Stephen


Driberg, Tom
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Eric
Milian, Bruce
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Greenwood, Anthony
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Wigg and Mr. Sydney Silverman.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:

The Committee divided: Ayes 127. Noes 15.

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[12.38 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Butter,Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Errington, Sir Eric


Aitken, W. T.
Cart, Compton (Barons Court)
Farr, John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Finlay, Graeme


Allason, James
Chataway, Christopher
Fisher, Nigel


Atkins, Humphrey
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Barter, John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gammons, Lady


Botsford, Brian
Cleaver, Leonard
Gibson-Watt, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Coulson, J. M.
Goodhart, Philip


Bidgood, John C.
Critchley, Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Biggs Davison, John
Curran, Charles
Green, Alan


Bishop, F. P.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grimston, Sir Robert


Black, Sir Cyril
Dance, James
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bossom, Clive
d'Avigdor-Goidsmld, Sir Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Deedes, W. F.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Box, Donald
du Cann, Edward
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duncan, Sir dames
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hocking, Philip N.


Bullard, Denys
Elliott,R. W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyrle, Ns)
Holland, Philip




Hopkins, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shepherd, William


Hornby, R. P.
Mills, Stratton
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Montgomery, Fergus
Smithers, Peter


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Heave, Alrey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Studholme, Sir Henry


Jackson, John
Noble, Michael
Talbot, John E.


Jennings, J. C.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Teeling, William


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Peel, John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Kirk, Peter
Pott, Percivall
Vane, W. M. F.


Leavey, J. A.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior, J. M. L.
Watts, James


Miley, F. J. P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Rees, Hugh
Wise, A. R.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Woodhouse, C. M.


MacArthur, Ian
Roots, William
Woodnutt, Mark


McLaren, Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Maddan, Martin
Seymour, Leslie



Maginnis, John E.
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Sharpies, Richard
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Mawby, Ray
Shaw, M.
Mr. Whitelaw




NOES


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingler, Stephen


Diamond, John
Manuel, A. C.

Whitlock, William


Driberg, Tom
Mendelson, J. J.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Fletcher, Eric
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Greenwood, Anthony
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Mr. Wigg and Mr. Sydney Silverman.

12.45 a.m.

Clause 3.—(SHORT TITLE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chairman: I cannot accept such a Motion.

Mr. Swingler: May I submit my reasons—

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Fletcher: I have waited patiently throughout the discussions on Clauses 1 and 2 without intervening. There are, however, on this Clause certain observations of a serious nature which I think are deserving of the attention of the Committee.
Broadly speaking, the point I wish to make is that Clause—

Mr. William Shepherd: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it proper that this debate should continue without any representation on the Opposition Front Bench?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is not the absence of any representative of the Opposition on the

Front Bench balanced by the absence of the Attorney-General from the Government Front Bench?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Fletcher: The argument that I wish to address to the Committee is that the Clause, as it stands, is palpably wrong. It reads:
This Act may be cited as the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960.
This is not a new point, because it was noticed by the Financial Secretary. He said:
Perhaps I should be in order at this stage"—
incidentally, I am not sure that he was, but I hope that he will have an opportunity of elaborating it later—
in mentioning that the reason why in Clause 3 the Measure is cited as the 1960 Act is that it received its First Reading on 21st December, 1960."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1961, Vol. 635, c. 194.]
I would have thought that it would have been more appropriate for this Clause, when enacted, to read:
This Act may be cited as the Consolidated Fund Act, 1961.
Apparently the Government do not take that view. They think it should be dated 1960. There are very serious objections to that form of nomenclature, and one is that there is already on the


Statute Book an Act called the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960. It is also known as
8 &amp; 9 Eliz. 2 Ch. 10.
That Act was passed on 22nd March, 1960, and it seems highly undesirable that there should be two Acts with precisely the same Title. That will be the effect if we allow Clause 3 to stand in its present form. The Committee should appreciate what it did when it passed the 1960 Act. Parliament authorised the Treasury to
…issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty, the sum of eighty-two million, twenty-six thousand and thirty-two pounds.
I do not pretend to understand the reasoning or manoeuvring of the Government, or why they should have thought it necessary to add to the admitted confusion in this Bill the absurdity of asking us to pass another Bill with the same Title. I should have thought—

The Chairman: Bills introduced before Christmas all bear the date of 1960, and changes of date are made in the Public Bill Office on subsequent reprinting.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that. There are two alternatives open to the Treasury. They either could have made this alteration, and called it the Consolidated Fund Act, 1961, or—and I think this more sensible—they could have called this Bill the Consolidated Fund (Number 2) Act, 1960. There are plenty of precedents for that. This is so important that I have with me The Statutes Revised, and I have not been able to find a single case in the history of Parliament in which two Acts with precisely the same Title and date have ever been passed. If it has been thought necessary that there should be two Acts in the same calendar year of the same Title, it has been the invariable practice to call the first Number 1 and the second Number 2.
I do not know whether this date is going to be changed or not. If there is any question of the date being changed without the consent of the Committee—

Mr. Driberg: On Third Reading, or when?

Mr. Fletcher: Perhaps not on Third Reading, I do not know. At a later stage I may, or I may not, move an Amendment in Clause 3. At the moment, I wish to address reasons why the Committee cannot possibly pass this Clause in its present form. I have taken the trouble to search for precedents, and I have here The Statutes Revised, which goes hack to Magna Carta. I have not been able to find a single Statute—

Mr. Wigg: Would my hon. and learned Friend tell us whether he is going to work backwards to Magna Carta or whether he is going to start from Magna Carta and work forwards?

Mr. Fletcher: If my hon. Friend is patient, I am sure he will appreciate the relevance of what I am going to say about Magna Carta to the absurdity of this Bill. The first Magna Carta was passed in 1215. If we look at The Statutes Revised, the official publication, we find there printed
Magna Carter A.D. 1297 25 Edward 1 1297
—in those days it was not the custom to say "Magna Carta No. 2." The short Title says that the Great Charter of the Liberties of England and of the Liberties of the Forest are confirmed by King Edward in the twenty fifth year of his reign.

Mr. Diamond: That was when minorities had rights.

Mr. Fletcher: When we have an Act like the Magna Carta up to date and modern in its form, I hope that the Financial Secretary will not tell us that this Bill by Clause 3 is to be called the "Consolidated Fund Act, 1960," when there is a Consolidated Fund Act, 1960, on the Statute Book which deals with a totally different sum of £82 million. I mention it to dispose of the argument that what we have is a confirmation of the existing Act, which was what the Bill did in the case of Magna Carta 1297, which confirmed the Act of 1215 on which all our liberties depend.

Mr. Wigg: I hope my hon. Friend will remember that in the Magna Carta of those days there existed minority rights which do not exist now.

Mr. Fletcher: I yield to no one in my desire to stand up for the liberties of the British people. It offends my sense of


legislative correctitude and everything else that this important Bill should be brought before us in this state, full of mistakes, muddle and confusion—

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not now dealing with the Bill but with a Motion "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill"

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged, Sir William. I do not intend to say a word about Clauses 1 or 2. I have refrained from mentioning them hitherto. We have had a good discussion on those Clauses, but I am more concerned with Clause 3.
We have heard in our previous discussions that this Bill cannot be amended in Committee and there may be some doubt whether it can be amended on Third Reading. I will not anticipate what may be said on Third Reading. I am anxious that when this Bill becomes law, if ever it does, the date on it does not admit of the slightest confusion. If Clause 3 is allowed to stand in its present form, it will produce the maximum of confusion. It will be identical with the Title of the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960, which has already been passed.
The muddle does not finish there, because there is a further error in this Bill which I wish to explain in some detail. At the top of the Bill, before the words, "Consolidated Fund" will be seen, "9 Eliz. 2". "Eliz" is short for "Elizabeth"—

The Deputy-Chairman: We are now debating a Motion that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. We cannot go outside that.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not propose to go outside that. Clause 3 is entitled "Short title." I do not want to elaborate what I have to say, but in view of your observations I may have to be a little elementary and go back a little and explain the significance of a Short Title to a Bill. Here again I have a great deal of authority on the subject. In recent years a very curious system of chronology in relation to Acts of Parliament was introduced with the result that nowadays there are two different methods by which Acts of Parliament, whether with or without a short title, can be identified.

1.0 a.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: The short title is not in Clause 3.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Sir William, if you look at Clause 3 there is a shoulder note—"Short title". The whole object of Clause 3 is to give the Bill a short title.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but the shoulder note "Short title" is not debatable on the Question "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged, Sir William. I am not proposing to debate the accuracy or the relevance of the shoulder note. I am perfectly content that it should stay as it is. But what I would respectfully suggest is that that shoulder note in the margin must be construed as having some reference to Clause 3. Otherwise I would find is very difficult to know what purpose it has. I agree that it is not part of the Bill—

The Deputy-Chairman: Whatever purpose it may have, it does not arise on the Question "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I submit to you, Sir William, that my hon. Friend's point has been misunderstood. As I understand him, he is not suggesting for a moment that the words "Short title", form part of Clause 3; nor is he seeking to debate them one way or the other. He is submitting an argument about Clause 3, and he is using these words "Short title" in the margin in illustration of the argument about Clause 3 which he is offering to the Committee. Surely that must be in order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be better if we could get back to the hon. Member's speech on the Question "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Fletcher: All I am suggesting is that Clause 3 as it stands is totally inappropriate. What I was proposing to say was this, As far as I can understand this rather comic Bill, the only object of Clause 3 is to give the Bill a short title. I know that the shoulder note is not part of the Bill, but the purpose of having Clause 3 at all, in so far as it has a


purpose, must be that the Bill should have a short title. I hope I have carried the Committee with me so far.
That being so, may I now proceed to the next stage of my argument, which is this. If the Bill is to have a short title—and I hope I shall carry the Committee with me on this point—it is desirable that it should be the right short title. What I have submitted is that the present short title cannot possibly be the right one. It must be wrong, because it is so confusing and ambiguous. I do not think that I would be fulfilling my duty to the Committee unless I went on to explain why I think the short title is wrong, why it is defective, how it ought to be corrected and the various alternatives that could be substituted for it.
I have already indicated that there are two possible alternatives which would make sense. One would be to call it the Consolidated Fund Act, 1961, and another would be to call it the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1960.

Sir E. Boyle: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fletcher: The Financial Secretary shakes his head. He does not like either of those alternatives.
I regret this because I am afraid that inevitably it will prolong my speech to some extent, but I am driven to offer the Financial Secretary a third choice, which I hope will be acceptable. He is as anxious as I am—and I am doing this only to help him—that we should have a Short Title which is correct. That is why I thought I should be in order in drawing attention to the fact that at the top of the Bill there are the words, "9 Eliz. 2." They are words which the Minister has put on the Bill. I want to consider whether it would not be better instead of allowing this Measure to be cited as the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960, that there should be substituted "9 Eliz. Chap. 2." That is a possible alternative and one for which there are precedents throughout the centuries.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not at all contented with this method of suggesting alternatives. The debate must be confined to what is in Clause 1. This is not the time to propose amendments or alternatives. The debate must be on what is in the Clause.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, in view of the Ruling you have just given, Sir William, would you consider a Motion to report Progress so that we can ask the Government to consider getting the Law Officers here to explain the legal aspect of the matter. We have been troubled all the way through Committee and the Committee has been handicapped by the absence of competent people to advise us.

The Deputy-Chairman: I can save the hon. Member going further. I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. If you would not accept that Motion, would you accept an alternative Motion, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," in order that we may explore the possibilities—

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. I think you ruled just now in your invariably helpful way, if I may say so, that we could not offer alternatives but could discuss only what is actually in the Clause as printed on the paper. Surely we are allowed to say why and if we think that one or more of the words in the Clause is inapposite, out of place or could be better expressed?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, the hon. Member is quite right and the hon. Member who has the Floor had in fact been doing that for some few minutes.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. In view of the fact that on the points raised by my hon. Friends we cannot get any alteration, would it be possible to have the original copy of Magna Carta?

The Deputy-Chairman: In reply to that question, if the hon. Member really desires to get a copy, I think he will find one available somewhere in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Wigg: In that case, would you consider a Motion for the Adjournment so that we can all go and consult it?

Mr. Fletcher: If it would help my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I have, not the original, but a copy of Magna Carta as printed in The Statutes Revised. I shall be very happy


to lend it to him if he will allow me to retain it for a few moments because I have not yet finished with it.
I am most anxious to comply with your Ruling, Sir William, and to keep strictly within the rules of order and to say nothing except why I object to Clause 3 as it stands and why I object to the phrase:
This Act may be cited as the Consolidated Fund Act. 1960.
Quite palpably it is not that because there is another statute on the Statute Book. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley leaves the Committee, may I say that the relevance of Magna Carta is that surely it will be in order to consider whether this Bill should have a Short Title or not. In that context I would point out that Magna Carta has not got a Short Title. Magna Carta, which is the charter of our liberties and which throughout the centuries has been known as Magna Carta to every schoolboy, does not have to have a Clause at the end of it saying, "This shall be known as Magna Carta". It always has been known as Magna Carta. The same applies to other Acts. I will cite some more if it will interest my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

Mr. Manuel: Surely my hon. Friend is rather confusing the Committee. Is not "Magna Carta" merely the Short Title?

Mr. Fletcher: In reply to my hon. Friend, what I was trying to say was that Magna Carta is de facto the Short Title. Everyone knows that it is Magna Carta, and it does not conclude with a Clause 3 or—

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not debating Magna Carta.

Mr. Wigg: Why not "Enoch's Folly"?

Mr. Fletcher: I was only using Magna Carta by way of analogy to explain to my hon. Friend that I think everyone knows that it is Magna Carta. It does not contain a Clause at the end saying, "This shall be known as Magna Carta". Therefore, if it is necessary to argue the matter—indeed, I had not intended to argue it—I would have been content to argue that there is no need for Clause 3 at all. However, I will come to that in a moment. Hitherto I have

been content to argue that if we must have a Clause 3 then we must have something which is clear and unambiguous.

Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott (Ripon): Tedious repetition.

Mr. Fletcher: I am flattered that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have been following my argument.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway opposite charged my hon. Friend with tedious repetition which, in fact, is out of order. If he has an allegation to make, surely Sir William, with respect, he should make it through the Chair and not make an allegation which he has not the courage to stand up and make.

Mr. Fletcher: I should be quite content—

Mr. Wigg: Can we have your Ruling, Sir William, on that point. Should not the hon. and gallant Member be asked to withdraw the allegation?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know that I heard the allegation, but certainly the words "tedious repetition" were beginning to bring themselves before my own mind.

Mr. Driberg: With respect, Sir William, is not the adjective a matter for opinion? I thought it was rather interesting.

Mr. Wigg: If it was coming before your mind, Sir William, surely until it had fixed itself in your mind, and therefore provoked you to action, it was out of order to anticipate the Chair. Surely it is the right of minorities in the House to have protection from the Chair. In the circumstances, would it not be proper for the hon. and gallant Gentleman either to deny that he used the words or to withdraw them?

The Deputy-Chairman: I heard nothing disorderly going on in the Committee.

Mr. Fletcher: I will now pass to an alternative for the benefit of hon. Gentleman opposite, to another point which I had not even begun to put. It is that there is no need for Clause 3 at all. I will explain why I say that. I say that for the reason that it is a comparative


innovation to introduce into an Act of Parliament a Clause saying that it may be cited as such and such. I was just thinking how recent it was.
1.15 a.m.
The Act of Union of Great Britain and Ireland, which was passed in 1801, is another example. Everybody knows it as "the Act of Union". There is no Section in it saying, "This Act may be cited as the Act of Union' ". It is the Act of Union, and everybody knows it as such. Therefore, the Government do not have to put something into an Act of Parliament saying that it can be cited as such and such.
It is important for hon. Members to understand that the history of the matter is that technically Bills are known either by their calendar year and chapter or by their regnal year. I am not suggesting—I might not be in order in suggesting—that it would be convenient to go back to the practice of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and cite this Measure as "9 Elizabeth, Chapter 2", but that would be much better than citing it as "the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960", because there already is one.
Of the whole variety of alternatives open to the Financial Secretary, why on earth he should put the Committee in the intolerable confusion of choosing a name which has already been chosen is beyond me. If the hon. Gentleman has any children, he does not call them all by the same Christian name.

Mr. Diamond: Not after the Act of Union.

Mr. Fletcher: I am reminded of an Irishman who called his first daughter "Mary". When his wife and he had a second daughter they considered what they should call her and decided to call her "Mary" because they could not think of anything else. It is the same with the hon. Gentleman. He produced a Bill called "the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960". Now he is introducing another Bill and is calling it by the same name. Surely he is not so at a loss for designations as to resort to that kind of repetition. That kind of repetition is far more tedious and intolerable than anything which has gone on here.

Mr. Harold Davies: My hon. Friend has made the case clearly that

this is absolutely absurd and is a definite example of the looseness with which the whole Bill has been drafted. Can we not at this juncture table an Amendment under Standing Order 40, which says:
It shall be an instruction to all committees to which Bills are committed, that they have power to make such amendments therein as they shall think fit, provided that they be relevant to the subject matter of the bill….
Such an Amendment as I suggest would certainly be relevant.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think I can help the hon. Member. We have already proposed the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," so the time for Amendments is over.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I should clarify that by saying that the time for Amendments at this stage is over.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. With great respect, Sir William, are you implying that we could have amended Clause 2 under Standing Order 40?

The Deputy-Chairman: What I am ruling is on Clause 3. We are now debating on Clause 3 the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We could not now have an Amendment to Clause 3 on that Question.

Mr. Driberg: Are you suggesting, Sir William, that it is competent for the Committee to have at some stage or other amended one or other of the Clauses? I thought a good deal of delay had been caused earlier by the Government's insistence, after consultation with the authorities of the House, that the Amendment we were talking about before could be introduced only on Third Reading.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going beyond the stage that we are now dealing with. We are on the Question, on Clause 3, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." On that Question Amendments cannot be considered. That is the question upon which I am now ruling.

Mr. Wigg: In view of your Ruling, Sir William, and in view of the cast-iron case made by my hon. Friend,


would you now consider a Motion "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," so that we can argue that the Government should take their Bill back again and reconsider the point?

The Deputy-Chairman: That Motion cannot be moved twice by the hon. Member in this debate. I am not accepting it.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. May I ask for your Ruling, Sir William, on two definite points? I take it that the Clause is amendable and that although, as you have said, we are on the—

The Deputy-Chairman: Now that the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," has been proposed, the Clause is not amendable. I am dealing with the present stage of the debate on Clause 3.

Mr. Swingler: Further to the point of order. We had a certain amount of argument about this previously in Committee. I take it that if we had not reached the stage of proposing the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," technically the Clause would be amendable.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot give a Ruling on a hypothetical question.

Mr. Swingler: My question is not hypothetical if put in this way. I take it that if it is shown in discussion that the Clause is clearly unsatisfactory, the Chair has discretion to withdraw the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has referred to this earlier. Is it not the case that the Clause could be withdrawn in that way so that amendment of it can be considered?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Chair thinks no such thing. So it is irrelevant to discuss that which would be hypothetical. What the Committee can do if it does not like the Clause is to vote against it. The Question now being debated is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Mr. Eric Fletcher.

Mr. Harold Davies: Further to that point of order. Quoting from the Standing Orders of the House. I submitted a legitimate point of order in all sincerity.

The Clause was simply put to us as the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". How could we make an Amendment at this stage under Standing Order No. 40? Is there any method by which we could do it?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is the duty of the Chairman to keep the debate to the Question before the Committee. The Question before the Committee is on Clause 3, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I cannot be invited to rule beyond that at this stage.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to the point of order. I suggest, Sir William, that the question addressed to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) as to whether the Clause was at any time amendable is not hypothetical. The reason why I put it to you that it is not hypothetical and that we should have a ruling upon it is this. It is, I think, accepted that in suitable circumstances the Chair has discretion to withdraw the Question before the Committee, that Question being "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". That would only arise if, in the opinion of the Chair, a situation had been disclosed which required amendment. But that would not be of any value either unless it was established, not only that there was a situation which required amendment, but that if the Motion were withdrawn amendment was possible.
Therefore, before seeking to ask you, Sir William, whether you will exercise your discretion to withdraw the Motion before the Committee, it is surely relevant to ask whether, if you so decided, the purpose of it—namely, an Amendment—could be achieved; namely, an Amendment to insert "No. 2", "1961" instead of "1960", or any of the other alternatives that my hon. Friend has suggested.

The Deputy-Chairman: There are so many if's in the hon. Member's point of order that I maintain my opinion that it is hypothetical.

Mr. Driberg: Further to the point of order, Sir William. I am sure you realise that these points of order arise from the fact that, in your helpfulness to us, you gave a Ruling a few minutes ago which startled some of us, because we


had understood that in the Committee stage of this sort of Bill no Amendment was possible. That was why we were waiting for the Third Reading for the other Amendment which we cannot discuss now, the one we have spent so much time on. You said—I think I have your words right—" not at this stage", "cannot be amended now", "It is too late", or something like that. Does that mean—could you help us by explaining—that at various stages during the Committee stage of a Bill like this one Amendments are in order?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not right to try to lead me into discussing past events. My duty is to deal with the stage that is now before the Committee, and it is the stage of debating whether the Clause shall stand part of the Bill. I invite the Committee to continue that debate and come to a conclusion in due course.

Mr. Fletcher: Perhaps I may be allowed, Sir William, to say that I feel that I ought to apologise to the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—for the fact that my speech has taken rather longer than I intended, and also to you. You will appreciate that I have been subjected to one or two interruptions and points of order. I do not complain of that at all. On the contrary, I have found it most helpful to listen to these points of order and your Rulings upon them because they have suggested to me an entirely new line of argument which I should now like to put to the Committee.
I understand from the Rulings that you have been good enough to give, Sir William, and from the elucidations that have taken place as a result of this ventilation of the procedure, that the Clause is not amendable in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I understand that it is not now amendable in Committee.

Mr. Driberg: Not at this stage.

Mr. Fletcher: We have heard in connection with another Clause that it may be amendable on Third Reading—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must not go further than the Ruling I gave, which is that the Clause is not amendable on the Question "That

the Clause stand part of the Bill,"once that Question is before the Committee.

Mr. Fletcher: What I was trying to say, Sir William, in view of your Ruling that this Clause is not at this stage amendable, was that it seems to me that the Clause in its present form is patently wrong and there have been plenty of opportunities for the Government to amend it had they so wished. This is not a new point: the Financial Secretary was aware of it as long ago as 20th February; he was certainly aware of the point on 20th February, and presumably before then. Therefore, if the Government had wished to put the Clause in a proper form they could have done so, but they have failed to do so.
Therefore, the Committee now finds itself in the position that with Clause 3, as with the earlier Clause, it has no alternative but to accept the Clause, which is bad, incorrect and ambiguous on the face of it, or to reject it. It seems to me that we should be putting ourselves in a totally false position if we adopted the Clause on the assumption that it might be amended on the Third Reading. Any Amendment on Third Reading is most unusual. If the Government fall into one error and make one mistake on a particular Clause, I can quite understand that they might in those circumstances perhaps be able to persuade Mr. Speaker to accept an Amendment on Third Reading, but I have never heard that each of two glaring errors in two separate Clauses could be amended on Third Reading.
1.30 a.m.
That would be an unprecedented situation. I feel vehemently that now we have discovered a second vital error it must undermine any confidence hon. Members have had that Mr. Speaker would have allowed an amendment to Clause 2 to be moved on Third Reading, because he will now be faced with the unprecedented task of deciding whether to allow two separate amendments on two separate Clauses on Third Reading.
We are in a shocking situation. There is the possibility that, if the error in Clause 2 had been an isolated blunder on the part of the Government, Mr. Speaker might have allowed an amendment to it on Third Reading. But it would have been inconceivable that he would have


allowed two amendments on Third Reading. I do not want to detain the Committee any longer, as some of my hon. Friends wish to speak. For these reasons, the Committee cannot accept Clause 3 as it stands and, I hope, will vote against it.

Sir E. Boyle: I would like to answer two points. First of all, the drafting of Clause 3 is perfectly normal practice. The year quoted in a Bill at this stage is the year in which it was first brought in, and this Bill had its First Reading on 21st December, 1960. That will be Changed to 1961 under our normal practice as soon as the Bill leaves this House and is printed for another place, which does not discuss a Consolidated Fund Bill, as it is a Money Bill. The Bill will, however, be printed for another place, and the title will be changed. The authority for this is in Page 579 of the 16th Edition of Erskine May, Which reads:
In practice…any alterations in a bill which are necessitated by the renumbering of clauses or by a change in the date of the citation title, and in marginal notes and headings, which are not technically part of the bill, are made by the Public Bill Office before the bill is reprinted at any stage.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Gentleman says—as we all know is the case—that the Bill will not be discussed in another place. Perhaps he could explain why it is being enacted
…by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal.

Sir E. Boyle: It is in accordance with the normal procedure that the whole of Parliament associates itself with our legislation. It is a well-known practice. The hon. Member is raising constitutional issues which go far beyond Clause 3.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman explain in what way his quotation from Erskine May was relevant? He said that this procedure which he described could take place in another place in parts of the Bill which are not technically parts of the Bill. In that case, they are not relevant to what we are now discussing, because the words
This Act may be cited as the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960.
are so far from not being a technical part of the Bill that they constitute Clause 3. It seems to me that a pro-

cedure to correct errors in non-technical parts of the Bill has nothing to do with the point.

Sir E. Boyle: I read the quotation rather quickly. The operative words are these:
…any alterations in a bill which are necessitated by the renumbering of clauses or by a change in the date of the citation title…
and then come the words:
… and in marginal notes and headings, which are not technically part of the bill…
The words
…technically part of the bill…
govern the immediately preceding words.

Mr. Wigg: Earlier in Erskine May it says that the Bill remains in the custody of the Public Bill Office and that no alteration is made to it without express permission of the House in Committee in the form of an Amendment put from the Chair. I agree that the words used by the hon. Gentleman are correct, but they are prefaced by the words "in practice."
Surely that means that the rule is not mandatory. It can happen, if there is no objection to it. It is rather like an Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. If there is an objection to this practice—and there is—the substantive rule must apply. No alteration can be made without Amendment, otherwise why are the words "In practice" there.

Sir E. Boyle: The passage I quoted starts with the words "In practice, however". When it says that in practice such and such a thing is done, it means that that is normally the practice of the House, unless the House, for good reason, decides to alter the procedure.—
In this case the practice of the House is that the year quoted in a Bill at this stage is the year in which it was brought into the House. That the change is made only when the Bill leaves the House seems to be a sensible practice, and I can see no rational reason for the Committee objecting to it.

Mr. Wigg: It may be a sensible practice, but we are dealing with a point of some substance. Erskine May says that no alteration may be made without the permission of the House. The fact that it is the custom on certain occasions for


that to happen surely implies that the custom can be challenged, and that it is not automatic?

Sir E. Boyle: The House is the master of its own practice. The Committee is entitled, if it so wishes, to vote against the Clause on the grounds that it dislikes "1960" in the Bill as drafted.
On the other hand, in reply to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I am entitled to point out that the procedure we are following in the drafting of this Clause seems to be well commended both by commonsense and by the practice of the House.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again, but I have been looking at page 579 of Erskine May and the paragraph the hon. Gentleman cited. Surely he must be mistaken in thinking that the words
which are not technically part of the Bill
apply only to the immediate precedent words and any marginal notes and headings. Surely they apply to the whole thing, as can be seen if the whole paragraph is read?

Mr. Diamond: There is a comma between.

Mr. Silverman: As my hon. Friend points out, there is a comma there. It says:
In practice, however, any alterations in a bill which are necessitated"—
now, by what?—
by the renumbering of clauses"—
that is quite clearly not technically part of the Bill—
or by a change in the date of the citation title, and in marginal notes and headings"—
then there is a comma—
which are not technically part of the bill, are made by the Public Bill Office before the bill is reprinted at any stage.
I submit with diffidence, but with some confidence, that the words
which are not technically part of the bill
must govern all the matters precedent to it in that paragraph. Therefore, it does not apply to the matter that we are discussing.

Sir E. Boyle: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might take that point. I cannot see any compelling reason for reading the paragraph in that way, and I

think that the way I read it to the Committee, suggestion that the words
a change in the date of the citation title
stand on their own feet, is a justified way of reading it, and I believe is the way the House has understood those words to date.
The final question asked by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) was, why is this not Consolidated Fund Bill No. 2? The answer is simple. Consolidated Fund Bills are numbered according to the Session in which they are presented. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when we come, as we shall, to another Consolidated Fund Bill in a few weeks in connection with the Vote on Account, that will be Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, 1961. This Bill being the first Consolidated Fund Bill of the Session, it is correctly described in the print of the Bill, and there is no Amendment to Clause 3 that I need arrange to move at a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. Swingler: Would the hon. Gentleman say what it is that determines the year that should go in? Is it the date of the Royal Assent, or what?

Sir E. Boyle: I did try to explain that the date of the Bill will be changed when the Bill leaves the House and is printed for another place. That has been the custom for a long while, and it seems a sensible one. If the hon. Gentleman does not like it he can vote against the Clause.

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Silverman: This seems to be important. It is apparently agreed that when this Bill receives the Royal Assent, if ever that stage is reached, Clause 3 will not be as it now appears. What we have been told is that at some stage or other "1960" will be omitted and "1961" will take its place. To that extent the Financial Secretary admits the whole of my hon. Friends' argument. Let us start from there. The thing as it stands is not as it ought ultimately to appear, and for an obvious reason, because the Clause says that
This Act may be cited…
Cited for what purpose? It means cited as a statutory authority in a court of law, to deal with disputed litigated issues. Having regard to what we have done in


Clause 2, there may be a lot of litigated issues under the Bill. Supposing there were such a litigated issue and the advocate of one party or the other relied on this Bill to establish some point. He would cite the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960.
Suppose the judge's learned clerk, who always assists him in collecting the authorities cited before him, went to the library and brought down the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960—but the other one—and the argument proceeded, with counsel citing the Consolidated Fund Act, and meaning one thing, and the court looking at a totally different Act. It is easy to see the enormous confusion that might arise even in the most lucid and judicial minds.
So it is obvious that one cannot have, unless one wants to make nonsense of the whole statutory system, two Acts cited by the same words or the same Short Title. That appears to be common ground, because the Government are saying, "Of course, you are right, but we cannot make the amendment now"—perhaps, as the Chairman said, because we are now debating the Motion "That the Clause Stand Part", or perhaps we cannot make it anyhow, or only amend it by Standing Order 53 on Third Reading, or perhaps not then, either. But somehow it has to be done.
The Financial Secretary comes along and says that Erskine May says that, in practice, we can do it somewhere else. The Public Bill Office can do it by itself. The Financial Secretary says that the words in the paragraph
which are not technically part of the bill
apply to marginal notes and headings. I submit that that cannot be true. If it were, it means that the Public Bill Office could make alterations in a Bill which are technically part of the Bill, and then one is in a very dangerous position. It means that the Public Bill Office, if the paragraph means what the Financial Secretary said it means, could alter anything in the Bill, technical or not. Whether it was a technical part of the Bill or not, we would have an amendment by the Public Bill Office. That would be a strange situation. The thing is wrong and has to be put right. The Committee cannot do it; the House of Commons cannot do it; the House of

Lords cannot do it, nobody can put it right, only the Public Bill Office. It is a reductio ad absurdum.
1.45 a.m.
I say seriously that it cannot mean what the hon. Gentleman says it means. If we have a part of the Bill which is not technically a part of the Bill at all, as for instance the number of a Clause or the number at the top of the Bill, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and there is something wrong with that, it would be absurd to use our Parliamentary machinery to effect an Amendment of that kind. So long as it was not technically a part of the Bill and it was necessary to put it right, the Public Bill Office puts it right. But it cannot mean any more than that, and if it means only that, this machinery is not available to the hon. Gentleman to correct an error which he admits has to be corrected. The thing is wrong as it is and we must amend it. Nobody can amend it, not even the Public Bill Office, and so we have the absurd situation I have described.
Seriously, does the hon. Gentleman think that this is the right way to deal with a Money Bill at this stage of our constitutional history? Is it right that we should sit through till the early hours of the morning with the Government obstinately forcing it through with their automatic majority, and sloppy voters dragging their weary legs through the Division Lobbies without the faintest idea of what is going on or what they are doing or what is involved? Is this the right way to discharge our obligations? Does the hon. Gentleman really think so? Before he occupied his present Office he used to pay a certain amount of respect to the traditions of the House of Commons. He used to agree with almost all of us that these things are not empty forms, they are not just bits of red tape or formal pieces of procedure. Sometimes they may seem trifling, but their history and purpose are both real. If we have not complied with them, the proper thing to do is to say, "I do not know whether it was the fault of anyone, perhaps it was the fault of nobody but it is wrong." And if it is wrong, let us take it back in decent order and bring in another Measure which is not wrong. Surely that is the right way to


deal with the matter, instead of pursuing this nonsense.
I think I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of most people that the procedure which the hon. Gentleman was relying on in order to correct an admitted error is not available to him. I am saying that once we have reached that stage it is rather sad and sorry nonsense for the Government to persist, relying on their automatic majority at two o'clock in the morning. I invite hon. Members opposite, who care as much as I do for the House of Commons and its traditions,

to agree with me that here we are making a sound and valid point on which we are entitled to their support and we will give them an opportunity to give it.

Mr. Redmayne: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. S. Silverman: Farcical.

Question put, That the Question be now put:

The Committee divided: Ayes 130, Noes 12.

Division No. 65.]
AYES
[1.49 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Forrest, George
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heave, Alrey


Aliason, James
Gammans, Lady
Noble, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Glbson-Watt, David
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Barter, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)



Batsford, Brian
Goodhart, Philip
Peel, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Coodhew, Victor
Percival, Ian


Bidgood, John C.
Green, Alan
Pott, Percivall


Biggs-Davison, John
Grimston, Sir Robert
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bossom, Clive
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Quennelf, Miss J. M.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rees, Hugh


Box, Donald
Hocking, Philip N.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hopkins, Alan
Roots, Willam


Brewie, john
Hornby, R. P.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullard, Denys
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Seymour, Leslie


Butler,Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Sharples, Richard


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Shaw, M.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Smithers, Peter


Chataway, Christopher
Jennings, J. C.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Talbot, John E.


Cleaver, Leonard
Kirk, Peter
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leavey, J. A.
Teeling, William


Coulson, J. M.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Critchley, Julian
Liffey, F. J. P.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Curran, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Vane, W. M. F.


Currie, C. B. H.
Longbottom, Charles
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loveys, Walter H.
Watts, James


Dance, James
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Wells, John (Maidstone)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Whitelaw, William


Deedes, W. F.
MacArthur, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McLaren, Martin
Wise, A. R.


du Cann, Edward
Maddan, Martin
Woodhouse, C. M.


Duncan, Sir James
Maginnis, John E.
Woodnutt, Mark


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
worsley, Marcus


Elliott, R.W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mawby, Ray



Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Finlay, Graeme
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. J. E. B. Hill.


Fisher, Nigel
More, Jasper (Ludlow)





NOES


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, Anthony
Whitlock, William


Diamond, John
Mendelson, J. J.
win, George


Driberg, Tom
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)



Fletcher, Eric
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Silverman, Sydney (Nalson)
Mr. Swingier and




Dr. J. Dickson Mabon

Question put accordingly, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

2.5 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Sir Edward Boyle.

Sir E. Boyle: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. M. Foot: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is happening at present is—I will give the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) an opportunity later—that I have called Sir Edward Boyle in order that he might

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 11.

Division No. 66.]
AYES
[1.55 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gammans, Lady
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allason, James
Gibson-Watt, David
Heave, Alrey


Atkins, Humphrey
Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Michael


Barter, John
Goodhart, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Green, Alan
Percival, Ian


Bidgood, John C.
Grimston, Sir Robert
Pott, Percivall


Biggs-Davison, John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bossom, Clive
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Quennelt, Miss J. M.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rees, Hugh


Box, Donald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hooking, Philip N.
Ridsdale, Julian


Brewis, John
Hopkins, Alan
Roots, William


Bullard, Denys
Hornby, R. P.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Seymour, Leslie


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Sharpies, Richard


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Shaw, M.


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chataway, Christopher
Jackson, John
Smithers, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jennings, J. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Talbot, John E.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Coulson, J. M.
Kirk, Peter
Teeling, William


Critchley, Julian
Leavey, J. A.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Curran, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Daikeith, Earl of
Litchfield, Capt. John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Dance, James
Longbottom, Charles
Watts, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loveys, Wafter H.
Welts, John (Maidstone)


Deedes, W. F.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Whitelaw, William


de Ferranti, Basil
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
MacArthur, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


du Cann, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Wise, A. R.


Duncan, Sir James
Maddan, Martin
Woodhouse, C. M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Wnodnutt, Mark


Elliott,R.W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Worsley, Marcus


Errington, Sir Erie
Mawby, Ray



Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton
Mr. Peel and Mr. Finlay


Forrest, George
Montgomery, Fergus





NOES


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mendelson, J. J.
wigs, George


Fletcher, Eric
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Greenwood, Anthony
Swingler, Stephen
Mr. Diamond and Mr. Pavitt.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Whitlock, William

tender the Amendment which was foreshadowed in a statement made on Tuesday.

Mr. M. Foot: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, before you call on the Financial Secretary to move his verbal Amendment, may I raise a point of order with you?

Mr. Speaker: I have not called upon the Financial Secretary to move it. I have called upon him to tender it. If the hon. Gentleman's point of order relates to the Amendment which we assume is to be tendered, I think that it is right that the Financial Secretary should tender


it first, so that we know what it is, and I will hear the point of order then.

Sir E. Boyle: rose—

Mr. M. Foot: On a point of order, which does not relate to the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to tender. It relates to the whole Bill, and to the Third Reading, and, indeed, it may lead you, Mr. Speaker, to believe that you should take action about the procedure of the whole Bill.
The Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, 21st December, 1960, No. 33, read:
Consolidated Fund—Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day and to be printed.
The Bill says:
Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed. 20th December, 1960.
It therefore appears that the Bill was printed before the House of Commons had given instructions for it to be printed. I think that this arose because the proceedings on 20th December went later than had been expected by the Government when introducing the Bill. Instead of the Government being able to introduce the Bill and ask for its First Reading on the 20th, it was postponed to the 21st but the Government also—as appears from the date on the back of the Bill—did not wait for instructions for the printing of the Bill to be given by the House of Commons, but went ahead with the printing of the Bill before the House of Commons had given instructions.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this discrepancy, which we have discovered only at this moment, may be one of the explanations for the many defects in the Bill. It would be a great pity, if, indeed, it is the fact, that the Government should have gone ahead with the printing of a Bill for which they had not yet had instructions from the House of Commons. I invite your Ruling on that subject, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it affects the validity of the whole Bill.

Mr. Speaker: In my view, it has no effect on the validity of the Bill. The sitting began on the 20th and the Bill is rightly labelled, in consequence, in relation to the 20th.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the claim that the Financial Secretary has made to move an Amendment under Standing Order No. 53, I submit that the Amendment that he seeks leave to move is not covered by that Standing Order. It is, perhaps, worth while to look at the terms of Standing Order No. 53—it is very short:
No amendments, not being merely verbal, shall be made to any Bill on the third reading.
I suppose that all that is common ground and that the hon. Gentleman would have to show that the Amendment that he moved was merely verbal before you, Mr. Speaker, could allow him to move it under Standing Order No. 53. Verbal in what sense? I submit that it is clear that "verbal" is used there as being the antithesis of "substantial." It is not the antithesis of "written," because he has moved a manuscript Amendment in any case. "Verbal" must mean something that goes only to the words, and not to the substance. It is clear that an Amendment that went to the substance of the matter in any way could not be in order under Standing Order 53.
I have been at some pains to see what authorities or other precedents there are for Amendment admitted on Third Reading under this Standing Order. Only one is cited in Erskine May and I have not been able to find any others. The one that is cited in Erskine May is in Vol. 160 of the Commons Journal, 1905, at page 401. On that page it says that
Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair; and the Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That the Committee had added a new Clause, and made an Amendment to the Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill, as amended"—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the hon. Member is saying. Will he be good enough to tell me whether that is the instance about the unemployed workmen?

Mr. Silverman: "Ordered, That the Bill, as amended in the Committee, be now taken into consideration:—The House accordingly proceeded to take the Bill into consideration.


That was the Report stage. Then, there follows immediately afterwards:
A Motion was made, and the Question being proposed, That the Bill be now read the third time….
Verbal Amendments were made to the Bill.
And the Question being put:—It was resolved in the Affirmative.
What was resolved in the affirmative was, of course, the Third Reading. The verbal Amendments are dealt with in the previous sentence,
Verbal Amendments were made to the Bill.
I have been, again, at some pains to try to find out what Amendments were made to the Bill, what were the verbal Amendments that were allowed on that occasion. The Commons Journal does not reveal it, nor does HANSARD of the corresponding date reveal it either. I ought to point out that that was a year or two before HANSARD became an official record. In any case, if there were any conflict between HANSARD and the Commons Journal, the Commons Journal would be right.
In HANSARD, it would appear that the verbal Amendments were moved on the Report stage, but that, clearly, is not so. The Commons Journal shows that they were made under Standing Order No. 53 on Third Reading.
But there is no record anywhere of what the verbal Amendments then admitted were. Nobody knows. There is no record of them. The Journal does not contain them; HANSARD does not contain them. There is no record in existence. If we only had what those verbal Amendments were we could make some sort of comparison between them and the Amendment that the hon. Gentleman seeks to move now. If we have not, we cannot make the exact parallel.
However, I submit, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that a fair inference from the absence of any mention at all anywhere on the record of what the verbal Amendments were is that they were of so trivial a nature as not to be worthy of a formal Motion or of appearing upon the record. It may not be the only inference, but I submit that it is a fair inference. That would, therefore, show that the only authority that there is in existence so far as I have been able to discover is that the Amendments that were allowed on that occasion under Standing Order

No. 53 were of so insignificant a kind as not to be worthy of setting out in the record at all.
I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to compare that with the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. He seeks in Clause 2 to alter the word "sums"—

Mr. Peter Kirk: Has the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) forgotten the occasion on 28th June, 1956, when he himself moved an Amendment on going into Third Reading?

Mr. Silverman: I had forgotten that. I am perfectly certain that if the Amendment that I moved on that occasion—I take the hon. Member's word for it—had been anything but trivial, or insignificant, he himself, or one of his hon. Friends, would have been very quick to draw the attention of the then Mr. Speaker to it, and if there had been anything in the point, the Amendment would not have been moved.

Mr. Kirk: rose—

Mr. Silverman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will later be able to tell us exactly what the Amendment was. If he will forgive me, I will not give way to him now because I want to make my own point.
What I am submitting to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, is that by no stretch of language or imagination can the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman seeks to move be described as merely verbal, let alone insignificant. It is so far from being merely verbal that it has a point of great substance indeed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This, I think, has been more or less conceded. In the course of the arguments in Committee I sought to get the Financial Secretary to tell me whether he thought that it would make any difference whatever to the Bill whether the Amendment that he was contemplating moving were made or not. He replied, choosing his words, as he told the Committee—and as was obvious anyhow—very carefully, that he thought that the Amendment was desirable.
It was admitted that it would not be right to leave the Clause as it is, and I submit that it could not possibly be. If one is talking about voting money


to the Government or allowing them to use money as security for loans, which I think is the precise point covered by Clause 2 (1), it cannot be merely a matter of drafting, having no meaning or no substantial meaning, or making no substantial point, whether Parliament grants to the Government for that purpose one sum or several sums.
It might be different if this were a mere printing error, but we have your authority, Mr. Speaker, for saying that it is not—that the Bill was correctly printed according to the draft made by those who wish to bring it before the House. It came before the House in its correct form, if by that is understood the form in which the draftsmen sent it to the printers, and in which the House, by Resolution, ordered it to be printed.
The mistake, if mistake there was, occurred earlier in a different connection. It cannot be said that this mistake was a misprint. The Bill was correctly printed, and the House dealt with it on that basis. In Committee, there was long debate both on points of order raised with the occupant of the Chair and on the Question that the Clause stand part. The consequences of passing the Clause with the word "sums" in it was debated on both sides of the House, and I do not think that it can be denied that substantial points were involved.
If substantial points were involved, then it is not a case for Standing Order No. 53, because, if at no time has it been covered by that Order, it cannot now so covered because the Committee deliberately adopted the Clause after a Division. As we have deliberately taken that course, it cannot, therefore, be said that, if the House wants now to change the Clause, the change is unsubstantial and purely verbal. If we change it, we change something which the Committee deliberately decided to incorporate in the Bill, knowing that the word "sums" was in it and having had its attention directed to that fact.
I hope I have not spoken too long. It may be that there would be a great deal of inconvenience to everybody unless the Amendment were adopted and made. I submit that that is totally irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker: I am not troubled about inconvenience. My concern is not with

inconvenience for anybody. I have had enough of it myself, but I enjoy it.

Mr. Silverman: I hope that goes for all of us, Mr. Speaker. But it is not inconvenience that I am thinking of. I am considering that if this Amendment were not made the Government might feel compelled to withdraw this Bill and proceed de novo with a new Bill, correctly drafted. That might involve the Government and the House in a loss of time and derangement of the timetable, with a great deal of inconvenience. I submit, however, that that is not a relevant consideration. Either the thing is in the Standing Order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I need not trouble the hon. Member with that point. I am the least concerned with inconvenience to the Government or anybody else. As I understand it, whether or no this Amendment is made is a matter for the decision of the House. Whether or no it be accepted is exclusively a matter for me. It is a responsibility which I have to carry, and I do so.
I have listened with the greatest care to everything the hon. Member has said, because I find it most interesting. I would like to deal with the points he raised so as to satisfy him that I have paid great attention. I am wholly unimpressed by the argument that one cannot make an amendment on Third Reading because the House in Committee has accepted, by Division or otherwise, the text of a Clause or any of the Bill as it stands.
It seems to me that that is true of every Amendment tendered on Report, and every Amendment which can properly be made under this Standing Order. This must be a common factor, and it does not impress me.
I respectfully agree that the Amendment tendered must be verbal in the sense of not materially altering the effect of the Bill if it becomes a Statute. It seems to me that that is a point of law for me, involved in the point of order which I have to decide. The conclusion to which I have come on this strict point of law is that a court construing the Bill as it stands would give it precisely the same effect as it would have if the Amendment were made.
For that reason, and because the Amendment would, I think, put in more


grammatical form the legislative intention of the House, I think both that it is in order and that it is right to accept it, and I so rule.

Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, to leave out the first "sums" and to insert "sum".
I do not propose to address the House at length on the Amendment. It may be thought, in view of the words involved, to be a somewhat appropriate Amendment for a junior Treasury Minister to move.
I repeat, in effect, something which I said at an earlier stage of our proceedings. You, Mr. Speaker, have expressed the view that the Amendment makes no material difference to the Clause from the point of view of interpreting it in a court of law. I believe, none the less, that it is right that Clauses should depart from this House in a form which the House recognises to be the right one, and to be grammatically correct.
I believe that, in general, in this House we achieve a high standard of parliamentary draftsmanship in most of the Bills which go through the House, a standard of which the House can be proud. It is understandable how the mistake arose. I do not think that there is very much doubt about it. We have Consolidated Fund Bills, sometimes more than one in the course of the Session. The majority of our Consolidated Fund Bills authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As at present advised, I do not think that the way in which the mistake arose, to use a neutral word, is relevant to moving the Amendment.

Sir E. Boyle: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to be so brief as to be discourteous. On the other hand, I have made my point.

Mr. Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I was about to put the Question.

Mr. Fletcher: Having regard to your Ruling, and to what the Minister said, surely it would be in order for the Minister, if he wished, to apologise to

the House for having had to make the Amendment on Third Reading?

Mr. Speaker: I have made the apology for my part.
The Question is, That "sums" stand part of the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. Speaker, may I, before advancing other reasons for not accepting the Amendment which you have ruled in order, use this opportunity to correct a statement made in the course of my submissions a few moments ago?

Mr. Speaker: With respect, if that goes to anything, it goes to a point of order, and we are past that. I have ruled.

Mr. Silverman: It is not that. It might well be used as a legitimate argument against not my submission to you—that is over and done with—but I am going to argue that the House ought not to accept the Amendment. It might be used against me in debate that I had myself on a previous occasion done a thing which I am now opposing the right hon. Gentleman in doing. I think that I am entitled—

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure. The difficulty is that, having proposed the Question, our debate is now confined to the proposition whether or not the word "sums" should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I fully appreciate that, but you heard the hon. Gentleman's intervention. What he said is not the case. I do not want to argue, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman himself would be grateful to have the point corrected.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's denial will be sufficient to keep the matter open to argue at some time when it would be in order. At present the Question is, That "sums" stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I will not press the matter, Mr. Speaker, if that is your view. Perhaps if it was out of order for me to reply to the point now, it might not have been in order in an intervention to you when we were not debating anything at all. I never did move any such Amendment. The Amendments I moved were totally different.
What I am suggesting is that the House should not accept the Amendment. You


have said, Mr. Speaker, that as a matter of law and construction the Amendment will make no difference. It may make it a little more grammatical, but it will make no material change in the meaning of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good trying to argue about what some precedent no longer involved did or did not mean.

Mr. Silverman: With respect, I am not arguing that at all.

Mr. Speaker: No, but others were. They were preventing me from hearing the hon. Gentleman. My criticism was addressed to the noise that they were making.

Mr. Silverman: I am submitting that as the Amendment makes no difference, we should not make it. It would be a great pity if we were to be delayed a long time debating whether or not to make an Amendment which everyone admits would make no difference. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will withdraw the Amendment and allow us to proceed with the Third Reading, which is a matter of some importance. It is conceded now that the Bill is the same whether we make the Amendment or not. Having made this blunder and done the thing in the way they did not want to do it, let us call it a day and get on with the Third Reading.

Mr. Wigg: So that the hon. Gentleman can apologise, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was, in fact—

Mr. Speaker: That is not in order.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I know that these matters have irritated my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to the extent of him making his protest against this Amendment, but I think that it is only fair that the Financial Secretary, at this stage, should acknowledge that this error which he is seeking to correct—and I welcome that—was pointed out to him by hon. Members of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] There is a formidable Opposition tonight and they are waiting for their laurels for pointing out this error.
If the Financial Secretary intends to maintain his good humour, as he has to-

night, he might also maintain his natural sense of gratitude for things done to help him. This has been one example of where we have, by going through the Bill Clause by Clause, endeavoured to help to make legislation better. That is surely the function of a good Opposition. I hope, having done this tonight, that the Government will realise that in our endeavours, Bill by Bill, Clause by Clause—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The rules of order are binding on the Chair as well as the hon. Member, and they confine the debate to the Question, That "sums" stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Thank you, Sir. By my point that we should make this correction I am, in a sense, supporting the Financial Secretary. But I am asking him to recognise that we have done some work and we deserve some gratitude however grudgingly we may be accorded it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Harold Davies: I wish to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 53 I wish to move in Clause 3, line 11, after "Act" to omit "1960" and to insert "1961."
I wish to do this in view of the fact that the Short Title of the Bill is "Consolidated Fund Act, 1960" and not "Consolidated Fund Act, No. 2", or "No.1." We all know that there is another Consolidated Fund Act, 1960, and that this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not want to stop the hon. Gentleman, but he is out of order altogether in that I have already asked for the Third Reading. But just to make plain to him that I am not doing anything unkind, I will say that I could not accept the Amendment because, in ordinary practice, that is what happens when the end of a year passes by during the concoction of a Bill of this kind. The relevant alteration in the date is made by the Public Bill Office later—I think on Royal Assent, but I am not sure. It is the ordinary practice to have the date in the corresponding form to what is now stated; and the hon. Member is too late, anyway.

2.37 a.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Like a number of my hon. Friends, I have taken no part in the protracted discussions during the earlier stages of the Bill. But I have been looking forward to this stage, because many of us on the back benches affectionately regard the Consolidated Fund Bill as our time. On this occasion, we have a limited Bill and, therefore, a limited range of subjects which we can raise on Third Reading.
That does not trouble me at all, because I have observed that sitting patiently throughout the proceedings without intervening has been the Minister of Health who, I hope, will now be able to intervene and give as a little help over the point I am endeavouring to raise. I take it that we can discuss the implementation of the measures covered by this narrow Bill, that is to say, these sums applied to the increase in the salaries of doctors and dentists, a matter which we may not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Subject to correction, I think not dentists, only doctors and staff. The hon. Gentleman will find a guide in the footnotes to the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Parkin: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
We have here, on a non-controversial Bill, an opportunity for the Minister of Health to give his views on a subject on which he is an expert and to treat that subject in complete isolation, as it were. What is the best way of administering a system on which these recommendations about the salaries of doctors and staffs were based? As we know, the Minister is an expert on the cost of administration, having been at one time one of the researchers in the Conservative Central Office concerned with presenting to the country the proposition that Government expenditure must come down, particularly administrative expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman must have studied the matter very carefully. The cost of the Health Service administration is so small as to represent only a decimal point or a minute examination. Therefore, the Minister must have asked himself what system of administration is the cheapest to carry out and what factor should influence him either to adopt or conform to some other system. I hope that before we part with the Bill we

shall have an opportunity to hear from him impartially what the results of those inquiries were.
It will give an interesting parallel to the approach of the right hon. Gentleman if we recall that at one time he was a professor of Greek, and I think that I shall only be putting exactly the same question in another way if I say how interesting it would have been if he had been made Minister of Education and had found the same system of administration and keeping of records involved in the payment of professors of Greek as applies to the payment of doctors. If, on his arrival at the Ministry, he had inquired how the salaries of professors of Greek were worked out, he would have been astonished to be told that after the end of the war it had been decided—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have great difficulty in getting the salaries of professors of Greek within the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Parkin: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am really drawing a parallel between the two systems.
We have here a situation where the method of computing doctors' salaries is based on a very different system from any other. I am suggesting that it would be startling to an administrator to be told that the work behind the computation of these sums of money involved the counting of people who are already admitted not to exist—this matter of pools, based on the number of patients which a doctor is supposed to have, and nobody minds if they add up to more than the total population of the country. The right hon. Gentleman must have come to the conclusion that the affection of the doctors towards that system was so deep-rooted that he would affect them unduly if he tried to make any economies in administration.
In nearly every other field the keeping of detailed records is being closely examined on grounds of economy to find out whether it is really worth while maintaining. Local authorities and Service Departments, looking over the record keeping, which has been so enormous, and all the store keeping, have decided to scrap a great deal of it because the bother of counting up is not worth while. The approach which the Minister has clearly made is, I suppose,


connected with his unwillingness to upset a traditional system.
I do not want to prolong the discussion. I want to hear from the Minister. I had not anticipated that the proceedings would continue till this hour, but I have in my pocket a report which is a rich field of discussion of the administration and the compilation of salaries in many other professions besides the doctors' profession. If I wanted to prolong my speech and keep in order, I think that I would be able to ask an enormous number of questions about the ideas which must have occurred to the Minister.
I am deliberately cutting my speech short, because I am concerned only, first, to sustain this occasion as a back benchers' occasion to discuss administration, but more important, to get from the Minister at this moment on a non-controversial Bill his expert and considered views on the administration and the work implied by this Estimate.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Pavift: I am pleased that, at last, this Bill has reached its Third Reading stage. It has had a tortuous way through the House. I wish to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and also to discuss some of the administrative arrangements which arise from this Bill.
We sought to have some discussion on the Supplementary Estimate which gave rise to the Bill. One of the difficulties we were in was that very few hon. Members were aware of the arrangements which were being made to implement the Pilkington Report. I made a claim at that time that the Government were treating this House with a great deal of contempt in refusing to take us into their confidence. During the course of the debate the Minister of Health was kind enough to concede that we were ill-informed on how the administration of these funds would be carried out. In the debate on 5th December, the Minister said:
A number of hon. Members made the point, of which I took special note, that the House of Commons should have detailed information as to the result of the considerations of the Working Parties. I certainly take that point and would like to consider how, in due course, the result which is arrived at can best be made available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 1007.]

The fact remains that that information has still not been made available to the House. We are in a position of having passed in the Consolidated Fund Bill £42 million the administration of which we are all hazy about. I do not want to delay the House at this time of the morning to discuss the half of this total which goes to hospital doctors, including the whole question of consultants and merit awards and the additional merit awards. It is too late to go into that, but if he is to intervene, I should like the Minister to tell us about what I consider the fundamental part of the pay award, the part which goes to the services rendered by the general practitioner. The basis of the Bill to which we are now giving Third Reading is that it is an acceptance of the Pilkington recommendations as a whole, yet when we discuss it we find that pieces are left out. I should welcome a comment from the Minister on why those pieces have been left out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) raised, earlier this week, the question of the £1 million which is within this fund and which it had been agreed should be a merit award. It is not there. There is a further £1 million which is the sum reserved to which doctors are entitled under the Pilkington award. It is already agreed by the Government that they should have that £1 million, yet when we challenged the Minister in the previous debate he said that was not yet in the Estimates although it is part of the award.

Mr. Speaker: If it is not in the Estimates it cannot be in order in this discussion.

Mr. Pavitt: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to illustrate that there is a great deal of haziness about the administrative arrangements and what is in and what is excluded. The present position is that we have passed a back-pay award amounting to £21,399,700 within this amount, a further £14,578,500 for this year and another £5 million for the Scottish pay award. I should like the Minister to address himself to the question of how this is being distributed. It is obviously not satisfactory if 21 doctors were to receive £1 million each. There should be some equity about the way in which it is distributed. We understand that


there has been a working party, but, so far, hon. Members have not had an opportunity of discussing how that working party worked.
I am particularly concerned to know, even though there have been exhortations by the Minister and also by the profession, that out of the sum being given to general practitioners those employed as assistants by them should get a square deal. The House will know that this is a private arrangement. A general practitioner gets a certain sum of money and out of that he is able to employ by private contract an assistant. It was generally understood that assistants employed between 1956, the time that the Royal Commission was first established, and When the agreement was finally reached would have a due share from their principals in order that some sense of equity could be preserved.
The Minister has access to the principals involved because each local executive council has a list of them. Before a principal is allowed to employ an assistant the fact has to be recorded. These facts are available. It seems that we should at least give some protection to the assistants because at present they have none, and will have none, unless the 'Minister provides it for them. It is all very well for the associations of doctors to make exhortations that part of this sum should be passed over to the assistant out of the goodness of heart of the principal. Only the Minister can take steps to see that that actually happens.
I should like to know whether, at the time that the £42 million was being given—over £20 million to the general practitioners—the Minister gave consideration to the question of the amount of work to be done by the doctor in relation to the extra sum being awarded. At the moment, the average number of patients looked after by a general practitioner is 2,282. It would seem that if we are increasing the general bill by an additional £20 million as a result of the Government making the award it should be possible at the same time to see if greater equity could be established between doctor and doctor, and e average list reduced.
This average mean's that doctors at the top of the scale have about 3,500 patients 170 attend to, which means about 17,500 items of service per annum.

Others have difficulty in making ends meet on the capitation system with only about 1,000 patients on their books. It seems, therefore, that the Minister in making the award must consider the possibility of making some readjustment within the administration of the general practitioners' payments to ensure a greater share out of the work in response to the award.
Can the Minister tell us a little more about the way in which the capitation has been altered? I understand from a perusal of medical journals in the Library that the capitation fee has been raised to 19s. 6d. per head. At the same time, there has been an increased loading by which those doctors with a certain number of patients are allowed a greater capitation. The loading, I understand, is 14s. for between 501 and 1,700 patients if the doctor should be in partnership, and if he is single handed the loading is between 401 and 1,600 patients.
What led to the division of these figures? Why not 350 patients. What about the doctor who is establishing a practice? Was consideration given to a different spread? Just how did the Minister reach his decision that this should be the way in which the distribution should be made? Was there some special reason why single-handed practitioners should be treated differently from those in partnership?
If the Minister was prepared to treat differently those in single-handed practice from those in partnership, did he give consideration to extra inducement payments and loading to those partnerships operating on a group practice basis where a complete list of extra services are being provided?
It has been the Ministry's policy for a number of years to foster group practice. I commend the Ministry for that. Might not the opportunity have been taken at this stage, with the extra amount of money as a bargaining counter, to increase the trend towards co-operation in medicine, instead of the possibility of acute competition or a scramble by the doctors to get the maximum number of patients on their list rather than to give the maximum amount of service to patients?
Did the Minister consider whether special safeguards were needed for the single-handed practitioner who ceased


to be a single-handed practitioner and entered a partnership? The loading is different between the single-handed practitioner and a partnership. If the single-handed doctor decides to go into partnership, does it mean that he loses some of the advantages that he would have had under the present loading system? Does the Bill provide an inducement to persuade people to remain in single-handed practice rather than to enter partnership with some of their colleagues?
A doctor is on call for 24 hours. No doctor can be on call for 24 hours for seven days a week. There are considerable advantages, if doctors can be persuaded to work with other doctors so that they share their duties. In discussing the administration of these funds did the Minister deliberately build in something to preserve the single-handed practice, or was he anxious to persuade the single-handed practitioner to join with his fellows, and did he give some inducement in these awards designed to achieve that end?
I notice that there is a big change in the obstetric arrangements. This is amazing, because there has been discussion on the whole field of maternity services for the last five years. The one result has been this question of the amount of fees. In this award, if I understand it correctly, the obstetric fees are to be raised—this is an item of service—from seven guineas to twelve guineas for a doctor who provides maternity services. A doctor who is not on the maternity list—that means if he has no special obstetric qualifications, but looks after his own patients—gets a rise from five guineas to seven guineas.
This increase in an item of service has come at a time when we still do not know what either the Government or the profession are doing about the recommendations made by a very important Committee called the Cranbrook Committee in England and the Montgomery Report in Scotland. Is this intended to fall in with the proposals put forward by the Cranbrook Committee, or is it separate? Will it interfere with any final arrangements which the profession might reach on obstetrics?
The position in Scotland is particularly difficult, because the deliberations arising

from the Montgomery Committee have not been concluded. It means that the Scots will be in the position, once the Bill has had its Third Reading, of receiving more for their obstetrics at a time when they have not yet decided just what service they are supposed to give in respect of that fee.
This is a most important point. If the Government are paying out taxpayers' money to doctors, they should know what service they will get in return. The extent of the ante-natal and post-natal services and the whole gamut of what doctors can provide in exchange for the twelve guineas are very important points, and I shall be interested if the Minister will enlighten us about those matters.
There is another provision in the agreement which affects rural doctors only. Rural doctors receive an additional payment for mileage. The Bill reflects that position. I understand that the fund will be raised to £1,888,000 How much of that increase is included in the sum in the Bill? Is that quite separate from the award, or is this part and parcel of it in view of the fact that the Minister has had a special mileage committee? This is based on the mileage that the rural practitioner gives in providing service to his patients. Hon. Members are not aware how much of this is reflected in the Bill or whether it is part and parcel of the overall blanket acceptance of the Pilkington Report.
Then arises the question concerning rural practitioners of the new difficulties which have arisen since the House first had the Bill printed on 20th December. The rural practitioner is entitled to consideration by reason of the fact that he is a dispensing doctor. What fresh difficulties is he meeting, and has the award taken into consideration the recent changes in the circumstances of a dispensing doctor? The award makes allowance for changes in the rates to be paid per 100 patients. Again, however, I do not quite know what those arrangements are. The House would welcome the Minister's comments so that we may know what fresh arrangements are being made.
The fact that about 2,500 rural practitioners are dispensing something like 10 million items of prescription service a year means that as a result of recent events in this House, the doctors to


whom we are now giving an additional award are acting as tax collectors to the extent of £1 million a year by collecting 2s. for every prescription item they dispense.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: They do not like it.

Mr. Pavitt: Has that been taken into consideration? Has the distribution of this £20 million been properly weighed between the dispensing doctor, who must be a tax collector, and the urban doctor, who has no such function to perform?
Another complication is the alteration in the initial practice allowance. This, too, has not been discussed in the House. None of us is clear what is happening. I understand that, under the Bill, a doctor setting up practice for the first time will now receive £1,250 as salary in the first year, £900 in the second year, £500 in the third year and £250 in the fourth year, an arrangement which, no doubt, has been agreed with the profession.
Is this, however, a new approach in the Ministry. In making this heavy weighting in the initial practice allowance, in giving a quite considerable salary, is the Ministry turning its mind from the capitation system? Is this the thin end of the wedge towards a salaried service? Instead of the present system, whereby the doctor is a contractor, is the Ministry trying to introduce the idea that doctors should be on a salary? Eventually a large number of docors may find themselves on a salary.
I am not quarrelling with that. If that is the Ministry's proposal and we have now reached the stage when the Ministry feels that it can start to introduce a salaried service and opportunity is being taken of the award to do so, I have no great objection except that hon. Members on both sides should have the opportunity of discussing it and arguing the merits and demerits of the case.
I wonder whether, in disbursing these funds, the Ministry is satisfied that it is correct to continue the present system of payment to general practitioners. In the Pilkington Report, there was considerable discussion of alternative methods—whether there should be payment by capitation, as at present, whether payment should be on the same basis as dentists are paid, by items of

service, and whether it should be as a contract for a specific term of illness, as in the case, for example, of obstetrics, which for this purpose is regarded as illness. There is no doubt that after twelve years of the National Health Service, these questions are relevant. They must have been in the Minister's mind when he entered into negotiations with the profession. He must inevitably have considered them arising from the very long discussions on the Pilkington Report.
There is an arrangement for a supplementary payment of £335 per doctor. I am not quite clear why the sum has been increased to that figure. The other proviso which the Minister has made—we have no information before the House, but I aim advised that it is correct—is that if a doctor is over 70 two of his colleagues have to check his competence before he collects his £335. This seems to me to be rather a strange situation. Here we are paying out the taxpayers' money to men of over 70 just on the hearsay of two colleagues who go along to see whether he is still competent. It is not the responsibility of the local medical committee, it does not seem to be the responsibility of the local executive council; it is just the responsibility of providing any two colleagues to go along and certify that a man of 70, 80 or 90 or older is still capable of giving the general medical services in accordance with the terms of service issued by the local executive council—and then that person can continue to draw the £335.
I wish also to examine the matter of 10s. 6d. plus 5s. per 100 on the list paid to the dispensing doctor. There must be some correlation between this sum and the amount of drugs being dispensed. It would seem that the amount paid at present, for example, for an antibiotic, When is a very heavy sum of money, is through an extra arrangement, so that when, for instance, a doctor is prescribing terramycin, or something of that kind, which will be expensive to the Exchequer, he is able to recover the exceptional amounts. Or does this fresh arrangement which the Minister has made do away with the arrangement which, I understand, prevailed previously and enabled the doctor, in circumstances where the amount of the drug bill was exceptional, to claim that extra amount in addition to these sums?
But now the sum has been increased. Has the increased sum done away with the right of the doctor to claim for the extra drugs? If it has, many dispensing doctors will be in a far worse situation than they were before they had this rise. The doctors have agreed that they will retain some of this money for the purpose of improving general practice. I understand that there is a working party at the moment between the Ministry and the profession—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that all that working party activity is in no way dependent on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Pavitt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; you are quite right.
I believe that that sum was part of the £1½ million that was excluded from this Estimate. Therefore, I should be out of order in pursuing that topic. In the same way, I should be out of order in going into the question of the other £500,000 which has not been included in the Estimates, but is part and parcel of the blanket award—the acceptance of the whole of the Pilkington award.
What I am seeking from the Minister is further explanation of the administrative realities of putting the award into operation. Will it result in a continuation of the harmony which broke out for the first time for a very long while between the profession and the Ministry when the Pilkington award was first jointly negotiated between them? Or does it mean that the arrangements that are now being instituted have—although they have been agreed by the profession—certain things within them which may lead to future difficulties?
Undoubtedly, the wish of the Minister and of everybody Who has the Health Service at heart is that, whatever the way in which they are distributed, these awards will lead to increased and better understanding both between the doctor and the Ministry and between the doctor and the patient, a better Health Service and a higher standard of medical care and attention irrespective of the quarter from which it comes.
We have not discussed the consultants and specialists award, which costs £20 million, but in view of the lateness of the hour it would not be right to detain

the House longer. But I hope that we shall be able to go into this matter at some time, for we are deeply concerned about it.

3.10 a.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Most medical men who read the journals attending Parliament, or who take an interest in HANSARD, will recognise that in my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) they have a good friend. He is interested not only in the welfare of patients—which is what the National Health Service exists for—but also in the activities and interests of doctors. I welcome his remarks on Third Reading of the Bill, which clothes with statutory authority the award rightly made by the Government to doctors after the Pilkington Report.
I must declare an indirect interest. When I first came into the House I wondered whether, if I remained in practice within the National Health Service, it might be considered to be an office of profit under the Crown. Rather than run the risk of being immediately debarred as a Member of the House, I wrote to the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—now the leader of the latest Tory rebellion—and asked him to state the position. He wrote that it was extremely equivocal.
Now the House of Commons Disqualification Act has been passed and the position is less equivocal. However, I do not practise within the National Health Service, perhaps regrettably, but my pecuniary interests are no doubt reflected by the standard of professional pay in the Service. I welcome the Third Reading of the Bill, which takes this process to its final stage. Unhappily, we reach that stage with incomplete knowledge of what it will mean administratively. The Minister of Health and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—whom I am glad to see here—should say something about that.
I shall not go over the many points raised by my hon. Friend, but will merely underline some, particularly in relation to Scotland, with apologies for being parochial. What has happened about the Montgomery Committee, and which stage have its discussion finally reached? We have not heard much about the position in England and Wales, but we are


very much in the dark about how this money is to be distributed in relation to obstetric practice in Scotland. Many medical men would welcome a statement from the Minister now or perhaps later this week, or next week, about what is happening.
This Third Reading will be welcomed in the medical Press. It may not mean much to hon. Members or to other professions, but the medical profession will know that this matter has at last gone through the House, and that the desperation of the Leader of the House on Monday about getting it through has now gone. It is valid to ask about administrative arrangements in relation to the obstetric list now that Parliament has given sanction to the award.
There is also the question of what is to happen to the moneys concerned with group practices. I recognise that we cannot go into all the intricacies of the distribution of this money, particularly in relation to the general practitioner merit awards. But it is true that the Ministry of Health and, I hope, the Department of Health in Scotland, have been discussing ways and means of translating merit awards into some form of incentive to improve general practice.
In passing—I should have said this at the beginning, but perhaps the oversight was due to tiredness—I must add that I think that the medical profession is deeply grateful to the former Minister of Health for the very sympathetic support he gave to the Pilkington Commission when it was sitting, and for his reception of its Report. I do not want to be offensive, but I tremble to think of what would have happened if the present Minister of Health had been in that office at the time, and had had to argue before the Cabinet about the award suggested by the Commission. I wonder whether the doctors would have got the award at all.
I hasten to add that the doctors are extremely grateful for the treatment and courtesy they have had from officials of the Ministry of Health. The Ministry's staff have been admirable in their negotiations all through this difficult period, and if I give thanks to the former Minister of Health for his conduct of these affairs, I also give thanks to the officials of the Ministry of Health for their work, work which is continuing and

which will be stimulated by the passage of this Bill.
That work consists of conducting negotiations with a profession which has a profound distaste of being involved in any State institution such as the Health Service is. Under, to my mind misbegotten, leadership of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that profession entered into an unhappy relationship with the State.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting far from the Supplementary Estimate which governs our present discussion.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I did not intend to, Mr. Speaker. I apologise. I was trying to point out, though I was obviously not doing it as successfully as my hon. Friend, that we are now, by agreeing to this award, and by agreeing to the Third Reading, which I hope the Bill will receive, seeing the medical profession launching into a more harmonious relationship with the State than it has so far enjoyed.
One of the points which is still a matter of concern is how the Ministry will use this money which we are voting to improve incentives in general practice. I understand that there is a scheme under discussion at the moment that, rather than consider the question of awards, they might consider means whereby, out of the Group Practice Loan Fund, or out of some other fund that might be agreed, we might be able to help those in group practice who want to own or rent their own premises to improve the standard of general practice.
I do not know how that arrangement will come about. There are many complexities in it, but this matter is being commended to the Ministry by the medical profession and I hope that the Minister will consider it carefully. He has room for manoeuvre with this sum of £42,877,600. It is not all docketted and ticketted pound by pound, and shilling by shilling. We know that from the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Pavitt: In fact, £100,000 of that sum has been earmarked for addition to the Group Practice Loan Fund, which is an interest-free fund.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: That illustrates my point. It is very difficult to distinguish one from the other.
We know that the working party discussing the £500,000 does not come under this matter, but it nevertheless raises an interesting point. If, within the settlement which the fund seeks to endorse we are to have this recurring annual grant, what is to happen about the first year which is not covered? That has not been mentioned, though it is relevant to this £100,000. As one of my medical colleagues said, "That is about the only bit we have. It is the only bit that we can say we actually have in our possession". Little did he know that the Bill had not received its Third Reading, and that it was possible that nothing would be given. However, that is a trivial point.
The medical profession is not willing to consider a salaried service. Its members do not like the idea of a salaried service. While it may be the opinion of some of my hon. Friends, and the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, that a salaried service is probably the logical sequence to operating the Health Service, nevertheless this would be the wrong time to start flying kites of that kind because we have at last reached this basis of harmonious understanding with the medical profession of a certain system of remuneration. Let that system carry on for a number of years until it settles down and until we have a chance to see how it works. It might then be fair to consider making certain parts of the Health Service salaried.
There is no argument of principle against salaried service in relation to some consultants or, as my hon. Friend said, in relation to some assistants. There are the lower and higher orders of medicine that seemingly have no objection in principle to salaried service. But the large section in the middle, and particularly almost all the general practice, do not like the idea of a salaried service at this particular stage. I know that Ministry officials are not thinking of it, and the Minister would deny that this is the thin edge of the wedge. In fact, the Minister probably will have in mind extending the idea of group practice loans and of stimulating the idea of health centres, although perhaps not called that, as suggested by a memorandum submitted recently by the Medical Practitioners Union.
I am grateful that I have managed to be here for this Third Reading debate and that I have been called upon to speak. I want to make it clear that while, in the exigencies of the Parliamentary situation, this Bill has come under heavy scrutiny, and no doubt hon. Members opposite in a sense resent the fact that we have had to discuss it through all its stages, some hon. Members and some doctors—particularly myself, as a Member and a practising doctor—resent very much the way in which the Royal Commission, the time not given by the Leader of the House, the discussion of the Supplementary Estimates, and this matter have been dealt with. I am rather glad that the Parliamentary situation has resolved itself so that some of us have had an opportunity to raise our voices.
My hon. Friends welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. We are glad to see that the Health Service is given a new chance for greater success by having a medical profession 100 per cent. in support.

3.22 a.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: It is natural that my hon. Friends who have participated in this debate have stressed the importance to the medical profession of the Bill to which we are about to give the Third Reading.
I welcome this opportunity to make some observations as far as members of the public are concerned, because one of the useful and interesting developments that has occurred in the Health Service has been the growing interest of the public, as patients, in what happens to doctors. One of the things we have always to be careful about is to see that, when members of the medical profession advance their legitimate requests, and when what they ask for is accorded to them, these should be properly understood by the public.
One of the points I would like to underline is the encouragement of group practice. I have found that there are many patients who have realised more and more the many advantages to be derived by having more successfully run group practices. We all know that there is a great deal the Minister can do, in using the money we are granting, to encourage the development of the service in one direction rather than another. We


know that there are certain things he cannot do, but we know there is an element of choice and an avenue of encouragement which he can use.
I would recall what has been said to me on more than one occasion by members of the medical profession during a period when a request for an increase was being considered by the Minister There are doctors very much interested in research. We know that this profession is not the only one where the work they have to do for the public in their day to day routine is sometimes making it difficult for them to follow their inclinations toward research. There is a public interest in encouraging those members of the medical profession who are interested in doing a certain amount of research, because there are two advantages that would accrue.
We all know that sometimes there is a tendency among people to regard the routine work in their own profession as being rather tedious. But I know of some doctors who, in a small way, are beginning their own research scheme and putting together statistics from their own experience. They often say that they find that they are not very easily in a position to go beyond the rudimentary stages. So I welcome this as one of the few opportunities to suggest to the Minister that it might be possible, in using some of the money we are to vote, to see to it that some encouragement is given in this direction.
It is equally clear that when we regard an area like my own area, where there are a number of industrial concentrations and also a considerable amount of countryside, some of the problems arise that have been discussed by my hon. Friends. I wish to ask whether we are doing anything to encourage the use of the combined resources of doctors in the industrial centres and those who concentrate on people in the countryside. There are many ways in which I think that more could be done.
I wish that this part of our proceedings should be treated with seriousness. I have no intention of delaying the House and I will, therefore, confine myself to the few remarks I have made. I am looking forward, as I am sure are my hon. Friends, to the reply of the Minister on these important points.

3.27 a.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) invited me to enter at large and in a critical spirit into the principles of administration on which the distribution of doctors' pay is based. But the whole basis of the provision in the Estimate which underlies this Bill forbids that approach. As the House knows, the basis is the acceptance by the Government and the profession of the Pilkington Commission's Report. Of course, it was the basic conclusion of that Report that the
payment of general medical practitioners should continue to be by way of capitation and other fees and payment should be made out of a pool.
So both parties have, on that advice, accepted the continuance of the principle of that arrangement.
Both sides are also committed to the detailed working out of the Pilkington recommendations by the joint working party which has concluded its labours and by the joint working parties still at work. Here, may I take the opportunity to associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Grennock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) about the great part played in these negotiations not only by the representatives of the profession, but also by the official representatives of the Health Ministries. Their work fully deserves the encomia passed on it in this debate.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavia) referred to the undertaking I gave in an earlier debate, that of 5th December, to consider how the result of the working parties' deliberations could be made known. Of course, he and I realise that that result lies in the future and that the limitations within which this debate is held prevent us from even speculating upon or discussing the subject matter of the work of those working parties. But I accept from him that it is right to consider how, when that work is brought to an end, the result can be as widely known as possible, and in the next phase of this operation I should certainly welcome another opportunity when these results could be discussed.
Meanwhile, we have before us the detailed working out of the Pilkington recommendations which was achieved by the first joint working party and which was accepted by the profession and by


the Ministries. He showed himself in his speech no stranger to the details of those arrangements. He recognised that it would be impossible in the scope of this debate to enter in detail into the many matters which they touched upon, so perhaps the House will forgive me if I refer to only some of them; but I will certainly look carefully at the hoe. Member's speech and if there are any specific inquiries that I can answer, and that I am not dealing with in my speech, I will do so subsequently.
The loadings, as, for example, for the single-handed practitioners, were arrived at by joint negotiation and deliberation by that joint working party. I do not believe that the loadings for the single-handed practitioners are in any way going to interfere—this was a fear which he expressed—with the development of group practice. I greatly welcome the additional help to the development of group practice Which those recommendations involve, and I do not think that anything is going to hold up the movement which is leading to the spread of group practice.
The hon. Member mentioned the increased obstetric payments and inquired about the relationship of those payments to the recommendations of the Cranbrook Committee. I can inform the House that the criteria which have been agreed upon for the award of those payments are based upon those proposed by the Cranbrook Committee. There is a corresponding question in relation to Scotland and the Montgomery Committee, and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland informs me that he will communicate with the hon. Member for Greenock upon the Scottish aspect of that question.
The initial practice allowances which have been increased under these arrangements were referred to, and the hon. Member for Willesden, West asked whether this is the thin end of the wedge which he said, if driven in, would be found to result in a salaried service. I would say simply that the desirable object of this is to help to carry forward the movement, which has already gone a good way, of achieving a more even distribution of doctor power over the country. There has been in the last decade a notable fall in the size and population of the areas which are under-

doctored, and I am sure that this improvement in the initial practice allowances will help us forward quicker in the same direction.
The hon. Member inquire—dand this is my last detailed point—about the dispensing capitation fee. That does not displace the alternative direct payment arrangement. It does not affect that. That remains in force side by side with the capitation fee.
In concluding, I should like to pick up one word which has been mentioned in the debate more than once, and that word is "harmony." The settlement to which legislative acceptance is being given by the Bill which now passes from us has, indeed, been the means of inaugurating a period of harmony between all concerned, between the professions, the Government, this House and perhaps even, I might say, the public that lies behind us. It will be my personal concern, as long as I am Minister of Health, to see that nothing I can do to foster and strengthen that harmony is left undone.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAMME, LANCASHIRE

Motion made, and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

3.36 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In September, 1960, Lancashire County Council was informed that its education committee's major building programme for 1962–63, totalling £4,200,000 and comprising 49 projects, had been slashed by the Ministry of Education to £2½ million covering only 28 projects. The decision caused great indignation throughout Lancashire, particularly in Haslingden and Ramsbottom, because plans for rebuilding Haslingden Grammar School, a mixed school which serves both those towns, had to be abandoned for 1962–63.
The present school is overcrowded, housed in inadequate unsuitable premises with two classes in an adjacent church and a third in another church 220 yards away. Under such conditions it is a great tribute to the headmaster


and his staff that the school's academic record is remarkably good and its activities so varied. It is, moreover, a great tribute to the caretaker and his staff that the school is so well cared for and looked after. But even the most energetic headmaster and most loyal staff ultimately get tired of hope being deferred year after year, and these conditions have lasted for more than twenty-five years.
The school was inspected by His Majesty's Inspectors of Education in 1936 and they Listed nine physical defects in the school of which I shall tell the House about six. They reported that the gymnasium, measuring 1,150 square feet, was too small for its purpose and there were no facilities for changing other than those provided by the cloakrooms. No change has been made since that time. Secondly, they complained that the accommodation for science was unsatisfactory. They said that the chemistry laboratory was small and awkwardly shaped and the physics laboratory was uncomfortable and noisy because it was directly below the gymnasium and added that it was insufficiently ventilated. There has been no change in the accommodation for science in the meantime.
They went on to say that there was no separate room available either for the senior mistress or for medical inspection. Even today the headmaster has to leave his room when medical inspections take place. Their next complaint was about the storage accommodation which, they said, was meagre throughout the building and I understand that today it is more congested than ever it was. Another complaint was that the playing-field, which was six acres, was rather small. They said it should contain a hard surface and they complained that the showers in the pavilion, consisting only of one for boys and one for girls, were inadequate numerically.
I think that perhaps one of their more important complaints was that the room set apart as a library had also to be used as a classroom, so that it was mainly used by the sixth form as a classroom and for private study. They complained that the function of the library as an entity was lost sight of because it was used for other purposes, and that the valuable help which pupils could derive from being able to rely on a central collection of volumes was lost because volumes had to be dis-

persed throughout the building. All the six complaints I have referred to still have not been remedied in the intervening years, twenty-five years. Since the report I have referred to the number of pupils has increased from 246 to 300 and the sixth form has doubled.
The headmaster has been outstandingly successful in developing sixth form work and has had a profound and beneficial effect on the school by adding to the variety of activities undertaken. But his very success, I think, has added to the difficulty, and when the school was last inspected in 1956 Her Majesty's Inspectors of Education once again reported adversely upon the physical conditions in the school while paying great tribute to the standard of education which is available.
The inspectors complained—and paraphrase—that the deficiencies of these obsolete and restricted premises, which had been underlined twenty years ago in the previous report, still remained, if anything with greater rigour. They went on to complain about the use of the basement for teaching in general subjects as well as in practical subjects. They complained that there are no separate rooms for the senior mistress or for medical inspection or for prefects, and they went on to say that prefects are obliged to use the library as their base with consequent interference with its proper function.
They complained, once again, that there were no changing rooms for work in the gymnasium and that the gymnasium was still much too small. They said that the playing field was too small. They complained about the pavilion and said that there was a lack of separate changing rooms for men and women teachers, which they regarded as unsatisfactory. They concluded, as on the previous occasion, by regretting that the usefulness of the library, especially for borrowing, is curtailed by its use as a prefects' room and meeting place for various school societies.
In addition to the complaints listed by the inspectors, I would add that the playground is lamentably inadequate and that there are no lavatories inside the school. They are in a separate building across the playground, without either heat or light, and the climate in Haslingden is very different from that in London.
I hope that I have said enough to show that the Ministry's decision to drop the rebuilding of a new school from the programme for 1962–63 is greatly to be deplored. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that the Lancashire County Council will be allowed to go ahead with the project earlier than is at present contemplated. I believe that we owe that to the governors and staff as well as to the pupils in the school.

3.43 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) for bringing forward this subject for discussion, since it is part of the wider problem of the Lancashire school building programme. I think that I can best deal with the conditions of this school and its prospects in the future building programmes of the county if I fit it into its proper context.
I am aware of the deficiencies of the Haslingden Grammar School, and also of the very high standards reached by the school under these admittedly difficult conditions. My advice is that the headmaster and his staff handle their task with skill and devotion, and that the results they achieve reflect the greatest possible credit upon them. I am sorry, as is the hon. Gentleman, that they have not yet had the opportunity to deploy these skills in better conditions.
The planning of a new school for Haslingden to replace these old buildings seems to me to draw together all the factors which underlie the general complaint that Lancashire has made about the building programme and which the hon. Gentleman expressed in somewhat extravagant and partisan terms.
I will deal with this more fully in a minute or two, but I assure the House that this school awaits its turn simply because everything cannot be done at once. We are in the thrall of priorities and of priorities within priorities. We now have the benefit of Lancashire's own assessment of the relative priorities of the many improvement projects she

wishes to undertake. The authority asked for this school for the 1962–63 programme, but it had to give way to other more urgent work. I know the difficulty that the Lancashire authority has had in deciding which new schools should have first places in subsequent programmes. Haslingden Grammar School will almost certainly find a place not later than the 1964–65 programme if the authority wants it then. But I remind the House that it is just one of a number of schools which have still to be provided.
There is nothing more encouraging to a Minister of Education than the knowledge that local education authorities are anxious to make the best possible progress with their school building programmes. All our hopes for improving, all round, the opportunities for educational advance rest on this as much as on any other single factor. This was the theme which inspired the White Paper of 1958. And there is no lack of evidence that authorities throughout the country are ready to co-operate to the utmost in carrying through the large and expensive programme which the White Paper forecast. The Lancashire authority is an excellent example.
It would be as well to remind the House of what we are trying to accomplish. The White Paper sets out a five-year building programme to be achieved during the years 1960–65. Three hundred million pounds are to be spent, mainly on providing good conditions for secondary education according to the high standards we set today. In the event, the programmes will be divided into £55 million, £60 million, £61 million, £62 million and £62 million of building starts, as we term them, to take us up to March, 1965.
The planning of the programmes rests on three principal presumptions of priority. First, new schools would be provided where needed to accommodate new populations in housing estates and new towns. Secondly, new schools would be provided to facilitate the reorganisation of existing all-age schools so that senior children would get truly secondary education. Thirdly, many existing secondary schools in inadequate premises of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred would be improved if possible, or replaced if not.
As would be expected, much of the earlier programmes is concerned with the first of these priorities. This has been the dominating theme of post-war school building. In spite of the massive movements of populations which have taken place in recent years, we have had no children of school age for whom a school place was not available where it was wanted and when it was wanted. That is a very considerable achievement. We must still reserve a large part of our resources for this purpose as new house building goes on.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: That is all very well, but the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that during the last two years, when the bulge has been moving into the secondary schools, it has led to an increase in the number of over-sized classes in secondary schools. Although it is true that places have been found, it has been done by increasing the size of the classes or the number of oversized classes in secondary schools, which is a serious problem.

Mr. Thompson: If that were precisely true in the terms in which the hon. Member expresses it, it would arise not from the logistics of school places, but from our difficulties in teacher recruitment, which is the principal limiting factor. The fact remains that where a school place has been needed it has been provided when it was needed. We still have to reserve a large part of our building resources for this purpose while the present rapid rate of house building is maintained.
At the same time as we have done that, satisfactory progress has been made with the reorganisation of the former all-age schools. Except in a few areas where special conditions apply, reorganisation will be accomplished when new building already included in the building programme is completed. The remainder, in the more difficult areas, will be disposed of in the 1963–64 and 1964–65 programmes that we are planning now.
I acknowledge with pleasure the successful record of the Lancashire Education Committee in these two fields. Lancashire's job is a big one. When we consider the third category of school—those which require remodelling or replacing—I know from my own experience of Lancashire that a big programme

still lies ahead. I am glad that the committee is so keen to tackle it. But I cannot acquiesce in an argument which says, in effect, that only my right hon. Friend's niggardliness or unfairness is holding the county back. That simply is not true, as I shall show.
Given a limit to the total resources available to be spent over England and Wales, given that some types of project must be provided for as a matter of urgency or absolute priority and given a total demand far in excess of the resources, some system of allocation becomes unavoidable. If the first two categories to which I have referred—basic needs and reorganization—have to be dealt with continuously throughout the five years, the process of allocation will bite first and hardest on this third priority. And according to whether an authority has more or less of this work to do, it will feel this bite more or less acutely. It is into this category that both Lancashire's case and the Haslingden Grammar School's case falls.
Let me, therefore, turn to Lancashire's case as it has been put forward on a number of occasions. I have had the benefit of personal discussion with a delegation from the county which I saw on 19th October last. If I may summarise briefly what was said at length, but with great courtesy—for they were talking to a Lancashire man—the members of the delegation argued that a building programme of £2·6 million for 1962–63 was too small—unfairly small. They complained that too much of it was absorbed in the two priority types of project and that although they had a large number of old, inadequate schools, they could set about no more than £½million worth of improvement projects in the year in dispute. They said that they found it hard to accept a building programme of £2½6 million for 1962–63 when they had had larger programmes in each of the two preceding years.
There are two important considerations that I must put before the House, as I put them to the delegation, which my right hon. Friend must have in mind when deciding the deployment of resourees. First, he must have a constant concern for the needs of the country as a whole and the interests of 146 education authorities. Secondly, he must plan in the context of a unified plan to cover a period of five years. If it were possible


to regard each year as complete in itself, and each authority as a mathematical fraction of the whole population, my right hon. Friend's task would probably be easier and certainly less productive of controversy. The balance of the school building programme would, however, be seriously impaired.
I must make it clear that it was not expected that the five-year White Paper programme would remove all the known deficiencies in all the existing secondary schools throughout the country; that would have been too ambitious a target. The total resources available were carefully assessed and authorities were invited to put forward annual programmes in the light of their own known needs. My right hon. Friend seeks the advice of his inspectorate, and a great deal of discussion precedes the final determination of what each authority is to undertake. Not surprisingly, opinions differ about relative priorities and about the needs of one area compared with the needs of another. This difference becomes more acute as we move more into the sphere of improvement and replacement. Questions of how bad is "bad" inevitably arise. I can do no more than—

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the discussions that he had with the Lancashire Education Committee. He has not referred to what it said about its commitments for overspill, which, I think, is one of the principal factors in the situation.

Mr. Thompson: I have not been able to separate the tasks which any local education authority of Lancashire's size and kind has to face—the tasks of providing for new populations either in overspill or in ordinary town development within their own populations, which comes as a No. 1 priority. Lancashire has to do a great deal of that. The second priority is given to reorganisation projects. Lancashire has a good deal of that to do and is getting on very well with it. After those have been disposed of, Lancashire has £500,000 in the year in dispute to spend on these replacements and improvement projects; and the complaint is that the £500,000 is not enough.
I am endeavouring to show, first, how it comes about that it is £500,000, and

that, both absolutely and relatively, that figure is arrived at on a fair basis. As I say, it is not to be expected when one gets into this realm of opinion as to whose need is greatest that there will be universal agreement. There never will be. All we have to do is to try to be as fair as we can.
In coming to these decisions, my right hon. Friend seeks the advice of the inspectorate, and a great deal of discussion goes on until we finally determine what each authority can do, as I have said. I can do no more than assure the House that the assessments on which we must finally rely will be made as objectively as we can make them as between authority and authority. After the closest consideration of this matter I am satisfied that Lancashire's treatment for the year in question passes this test.
If the Lancashire Education Committee will look at the allocations in total, it will see that it has no cause to complain of the way things are working out. Far from it. Taking the five years as a whole, the county will make great strides with all three parts of the programme. So far as future needs are known, she will keep pace with providing new schools for new population. Her reorganisation needs are either provided for or are already in a building programme. This work, we know, has made up the bulk of the programmes in three of the five years. These three programmes total £9½ million worth of new school buildings.
When the delegation saw me it was suggested that by virtue of her size and her school population, Lancashire was entitled to one-twentieth of the total resources available. Although I reject this as a basis for planning, I am able to say that over the three years the county has had more than this proportion. I know that Lancashire, which has always been a progressive education authority, is disappointed that the 1962–63 programme should be somewhat smaller than the two previous programmes. I am sorry that this should be so. I assure the House, as I assured the members of the delegation, that only the pressure of other more urgent commitments has made this necessary.
The White Paper programme, I repeat, covers five years. We have been able


to give assurances to Lancashire which I had hoped would convince her of our determination to go as far as we can in those five years to meet the needs of many of the older schools in the county. Large sums have been allocated in the two final years of the programme for improving or replacing these unsatisfactory schools. I know personally that, generally speaking, these needs are greater in the North of England than they are in the South, and my right hon. Friend promised some time ago that more of our resources would go there to meet these needs.
Although complete building programmes for 1963–64 and 1964–65 cannot be formulated until the needs are known in greater detail, the Lancashire Education Committee was informed at the beginning of this year of the allocation to it of £1½million for 1963–64 and of £1 million for 1964–65, solely for improvement projects—my third category. With the £500,000 in 1962–63 this makes an average of £1 million a year over three years—twice the 1962–63 rate. This seems to me to be a very reasonable rate of progress.
I know that even these considerable programmes will leave many schools in the county below the standards we must look for today. But it is wrong to proclaim this as a departure from the White Paper. It was never expected that everything could be done at once, either within the time or within the resources. The great advance of which the White Paper spoke will be made, and Lancashire will have her full share. We can then look forward together to tackling the tasks that remain.

4.2 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I have sympathy with Lancashire's problems and support my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) in the demands that he has put forward. In eleven hours' time I hope to put forward similar demands for Staffordshire, when we may have an opportunity to tackle the Minister of Education at Question Time.
The Parliamentary Secretary's answer has shown in general terms the continued complacency that exists in the Ministry. The fact is that we are not investing enough in education, especially

in secondary education. It is no good propping up these figures as though they were big.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows we are not substantially increasing our investment in the education of our children year by year. He also knows, from his examinations of statements made recently by U.N.E.S.C.O., that our investment is one of the lowest amongst the advanced nations. In the process of replacing old and archaic buildings and trying to provide new opportunities we are not keeping pace with the rest in the numbers of children who have to be educated in secondary schools.
One of the illustrations of that is the fact that the number of over-sized classes in secondary schools is increasing, and the Ministry is not able, at present, to stop it, because its sights in the recruitment of teachers in the last few years have always been too low. As a consequence we are not reducing classes as we should. I am sure that it is true for Lancashire and other places that the sights of the Ministry with regard to new buildings are always much too low. We are moving forward very slowly in the provision that ought to be made. Those who have had the opportunity to examine the results of much bigger investment in education in other countries know that we are not keeping pace as we should in raising educational standards.
The recruitment of teachers and the provision of new buildings go very closely together. One of the problems in recruitment is the continued existence of the sort of archaic conditions my hon. Friend described. We will not get the kind of people we want into the profession until we tackle more vigorously this kind of problem. What Lancashire is demanding, other places are demanding. Their demands amount to a bigger programme of school building as a whole.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes past Four o'clock a.m.